and i think by now i've made my views pretty well known. some of you are even keeping a tally of how many times i've talked about the american jobs act. and the reason i keep going around the country talking about this jobs bill is because people really need help right now. our economy really needs a jolt right now. this is not a game, this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. the problems europe is having today could have a very real effect on our economy at a time when it's already fragile. but this jobs bill will help guard against another downturn if the situation in europe gets any worse. it will boost economic growth, it will put people back to work. and by the way, this is not just my belief. this is what independent economists have said, not politicians, not just people in my administration, independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will

have a significant effect for our economy and for middle class families all across america. what these independent experts have also said is that if we don't act, the opposite will be true. there will be fewer jobs, weaker growth. so as we look towards next week, any senator out there who is thinking about voting against this jobs bill when it comes up for a vote needs to sdmran exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at surnl such an urgent time for our families and for our businesses. now, congressional republicans say one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. then they should love this plan. this jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. if you're a small business owner that hires someone or raises

wages, you would get another tax cut. if you hire a veteran, you get a tax cut. right now, there's a small business in ohio that does high tech manufacturing and they've been explaining for the past two years, they're considering hiring more and this tax break would encourage them to do it. hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. this jobs bill has funding to put a lot of those men and women back to work. it has funding to prevent a lot more to from losing their jobs. i had a chance to meet a young man named robert barros, he's an english teacher in boston who came to the white house a few weeks ago. he has two decades of teaching experience, he has a master's degree, an outstanding track record of helping students make huge gains in reading and writing. in the last few years, he's

received three pink slips because of budget cuts. why wouldn't we want to pass a bill that puts somebody like robert back in the classroom teaching our kids? some of you were with me when we visited a bridge between ohio and kentucky. that's been classified as functionally obsolete. that's a fancy way of saying it's old and breaking down. we've heard about bridges in both states that are falling apart and that's true all across the country. in maine there is a bridge that is such bad shape that pieces of it were literally falling off the other day and meanwhile we've got millions of laid off construction workers who could right now be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools. this jobs bill gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding america. why wouldn't we want that to happen?

why would you vote against that? the proposals in this bill are not just random investments to create jobs. they are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts, if we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs that restore a sense of security to middle class families. and to do that, we've got to have the most educated workers, we have to have the best transportation and communications networks, we have to support innovative small businesses and innovative manufacturers. what's true is we also have to reign in our deficits and live within our means, which is why this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. some see this as class warfare. i see it as a simple choice. we can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax

rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job. we can fight to protect tax cuts for folks who don't need them and weren't asking for them or we can cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. but we can't afford to do both. that's the choice that's going to be before the senate. there are too many people hurting in this country for us to do nothing and the economy is just too fragile for us to let politics get in the way of action. we've got a responsibility of the people who sent us here, so i hope every senator thinks long and hard about what's at stake when they cast their vote next week. with that, i will take your questions and i will start with ben feller of "associated press." >> thank you very much, mr. president. i'd like to ask you about two matters.

the federal reserve chairman ben bernanke warned congress this week that the economic recovery is close to faltering. do you agree? and secondly, on your jobs bill, the american people are sick of games and you mentioned games in your comments. they want results. wouldn't it be more productive to work with republicans on a plan that you know could pass congress as opposed to going around the country talking about your bill and singling out, calling out republicans by name? >> well, first of all, with respect to the state of the economy, there is no doubt that growth has slowed. i think people were much more optimistic at the beginning of this year. but the combination of a japanese tsunami, the arab spring which drove up gas prices and most prominently europe, i think, has gotten businesses and consumers very nervous. and we didn't help here in washington with the debt ceiling debacle that took place, a bit of game playing that was completely unnecessary,

completely, you know, unprecedented in terms of how we dealt with our responsibilities here in washington. so you combine all that, there is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year. and every independent economist who has looked at this question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double dip recession, it is important for us to make sure that we are boosting consumer confidence, putting money into their pockets, paying taxes where we can for small businesses and that it makes sense for us to put people back to work doing the work that needs to be done. that's exactly what this jobs bill does. now, with respect to working with congress, i think it's fair to say that i have gone out of my way in every instance, sometimes at my own political peril and to the frustration of

democrats to work with republicans to find common ground to move this country forward. in every instance, whether it was during the lame duck session when we were able to get an agreement on making sure that the payroll tax was cut in the first place and making sure that unemployment insurance was extended, to my constant efforts during the debt ceiling to try to get what's been called a grand bargain in which we had a balanced approach to actually bringing down our deficit and debt in a way that wouldn't hurt our recovery, each time what we've seen is games playing, a preference to try to score political points, rather than to actually get something done on the part of the other side. and that has been true not just over to last six months. that's been true over the last 2 1/2 years. now, the bottom line is this. our doors are open. and what i've done over the last

several weeks is to take the case to the american people so that they understand what's at stake. it is now up to all the senators and hopefully all the members of the house to explain to their constituencies why they would be opposed to common sense ideas that historically have been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. why will you be opposed to tax cuts for small businesses and tax cuts for american workers? my understanding is that for the last decade, they've been saying we need to lower taxes for folks. well, why wouldn't we want to do that through this jobs bill? we know that we've got roads and bridges and schools that need to be rebuilt and historically republicans haven't been opposed to rebuilding roads ask bridges. why would you be opposed now? we know that the biggest problem

that we've had in terms of unemployment over the last several months has not been in the private sector, it's been layoffs of teachers and cops and firefighters that we've created over two million jobs in the private sector. a million jobs this year alone in the private sector, but in the public sector, we keep on saying, these layoffs having an adverse effect on economies in states all across the country. why wouldn't we want to make sure that those teachers are in the classroom teaching our kids? so here is the bottom line. my expectation and hope is that everybody will vote for this jobs bill because it reflects those ideas that traditionally have been supported by both democrats and republicans. if it turns out that there are republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the american people why they're opposed and what would they do?

we know that this jobs bill based on independent analysis could grow the economy almost an additional 2%. that could mean an additional 1.9 million jobs. do they have a plan that would have a similar impact? because if they do, i'm happy to hear it. but i haven't heard them offer alternatives that would have that same kind of impact and that's what we need right now. a lot of the problems that americans are facing are problems that predate the financial crisis. middle class families seeing their wages and their incomes flat, despite rising costs for everything from health care to a college education. and so folks have been struggling not just for the last three years, they've been struggling for over a decade now. and at a time when so many

people are having such a hard time, we have to have an approach, we have to take action that is big enough to meet the moment. what i've heard from republicans is, well, we're agreeing to do these trade bills. that's great. i'm in favor of those trade bills and i'm glad they're passing. but that is not going to do enough to deal with the huge problems we have right now with respect to unemployment. you know, we pass patent legislation, that was bipartisan work. i'm thrilled that we were able to get republicans and democrats to work together on that. but that is a long-term issue for our economic competitiveness. it's not putting americans to work right now. so the bottom line is this, ben, if next week senators have additional ideas that will put people back to work right now

and meet the challenges of the current economy, we are happy to consider them. but every idea that we put faerd are ones that traditionally have been supported by democrats and republicans alike. and i think it's important for us to have a vote on those ideas because i believe it's very hard to argue against them. and if mr. mcconnell choses to vote against it or if members of this caucus choose to vote against it, i promise you, we're going to keep on going and we will put forward maybe piece by piece each component of the bill and each time they're going to have to explain why it is that they would be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom or rebuilding our schools or giving tax cuts to middle class folks and giving tax cuts to small businesses. [ inaudible question ]. >> i think if we don't take action, then we could end up

having more significant problems than we have right now. .some of it is just simple math. the payroll tax cuts that we passed is set to expire. the jobs plan includes an extension of the payroll tax cut. now, if that is not extended, then that is over $1,000 out of the pockets of the average american family at a time when they're already feeling a severe pinch. that means they're going to be spending less, that means businesses are going to have less customers and that's going to have an adverse effect on an economy that is already weaker than it should be. okay. chuck todd. >> thank you, mr. president. before i get to my question, do we assume by how you're talking about the bill in the senate that you are okay with the change in how to pay for it, the surtax, the 5.6% surtax on millionaires? >> we've always said that we would be open to a variety of

ways to pay for it. we put forward what we thought was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. keep in mind, though, that what i've always said is that not only do we have to pay for the jobs bill, but we also still have to do more in order to reduce the deaf and the deficit. so the approach that the senate is taking, i'm comfortable with in order to deal with the jobs bill. we're still going to need to reform this tax code to make sure that we're closing loopholes, closing special interest tax breaks, making sure that the very simple principal, what we call the buffett rule, which is that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying lower tax rates than ordinary families, that that's in place. so there's going to be more work to do with respect to making our tax system fair and just and promoting growth. but in terms of the immediate action of getting this jobs bill passed, i'm fine with the approach that they're taking.

>> during the debt ceiling debate, you asked for the american public to call members of congress and switchboards got jammed. you have done a similar thing while going around the country doing this, talking to members of congress. there's not the same reaction. you're not seeing, hearing about phones being jammed, talking to one member of congress who told me there's a disillusionment he's concerned about -- with the public that maybe they just don't believe anything can get done, he anyway. are you worried about your own powers of persuasion and maybe the american public is not listening to you any more? >> well, no. what we've seen is the american people respond enthighs afticly to the prevent provisions of the jobs bill. they are very skeptical about congress's ability to act right now. and that's understandable. the american people are very frustrated. they've been frustrated for long

time. they don't get a sense that folks in this town are looking out for their interests. they get a sense that folks in this town are thinking about their own jobs, their own careers, their own advancements, their party interests. and so if the question is, chuck, are people feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospects of positive action in this city? absolutely. and, you know, i can go out there and make speeches, but until they actually see action, some of that cynicism is going to be there. as you said, during the debt ceiling debate, you know, a very solid majority. i think maybe even higher than 70% agreed with the approach that i talked about, which is we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. and what the american people saw is that congress didn't care. not just what i thought, they didn't care about what the

american people thought. they had their own agenda. and so if they see that over and over again, that cynicism is not going to be reduced until congress actually proves their cynicism wrong. by doing something that would actually help the american people. this is a great opportunity to do it. this is a great opportunity to do it. and keep in mind, if the american jobs bill passes, we're still going to have challenges. we're still going to have to make sure that we've got the best education system in the world. because that is going to be critical for our long-term competitiveness and creating good, solid, middle class jobs. we're still going to have to keep investing in basic research and science. we're still going to have to make sure that we do even more on infrastructure. i mean, what's contained in the american jobs bill doesn't cover all the roads and bridges and infrastructure that needs to be improved around the country. so it's not as if that's going

to solve all our problems, but it is an important start that we know would end up growing the economy and putting hundreds of thousands, millions of people back to work at a time when they need it the most and it's paid for. i mean, the one persuasive argument that the republicans previously had made against a bill like this is, you know, the deficit is growing, we can't afford it. well, we can afford it if we're willing to ask people like me to do a little bit more in taxes. we can afford it without affecting our deficit. our proposal is paid for. so that can't be the excuse. and so, yes, unless they see congress actually putting country ahead of party politics and partisanship, tier going to be skeptical. and it doesn't matter how much times i preach to them, this is

not a reflection of their lack of faith in the american jobs bill. they haven't seen congress able to come together and act. this is a good opportunity. what we've seen is that they agree with what we've put forward. here is what i'll also say. based on the debt ceiling foert, even when the men people vote against me. highwa that's exactly why i need the american people to try to put some pressure on them, you see, because, you know, i think justifiably what they've seen is that oftentimes even ideas that used to be supported by republicans, if i'm proposing

them suddenly republicans forget it and they decide they're against it. jackie. >> thank you, mr. president. as you travel the country, you also take credit for tightening regulations on wall street through the dodd-frank law and about your efforts to combat income inequality. there's this movement, occupy wall street, which has spret spread from wall street to other cities. they clearly don't think you or republicans have done enough, that you're part of the problem. are you following this movement? what would you say to the people that are attracted to it? >> obviously, i've heard it, i've seen it on television. i think it expresses the frustrations that the american people feel that we had the biggest financial crisis since the great depression, huge

collateral damage throughout the country, all across main street and yet you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place. so yes, i think people are frustrated and, you know, the protesters are giving voice to a more broad based frustration about how or financial system works. now, keep in mind, i have said before and i will continue to repeat, we have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order for us to grow. and i used up a lot of political capital and i've got the dings and bruises to prove it in order to make sure that we prevented a

financial meltdown and that banks stayed afloat. and that was the right thing to do. because had we seen a financial collapse, then the damage to the american economy would have been even worse. but what i've also said is that for us to have a healthy financial system, that requires that banks and other financial institutions compete on the basis of the best service and the best products and the best price and it can't be competing on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices, or, you know, derivative cocktails that nobody understands and that expose the entire economy to enormous risks. that's what dodd-frank was designed to do. it was designed to make sure that we didn't have the necessity of taxpayer bailouts, that we said, you know what? we're going to be able to

control these situations so that if these guys get into trouble, we can isolate them, quantity teen them and let them fail. it says we're going to have a consumer watchdog on the job all the time who is going to make sure that we are working with customers and eliminating fees on credit cards and mortgage brokers are going to actually have to be straight with people about what they're purchasing. and what we've seen over the last year is not only did the financial sector, we tell republican party and congress, fight every us inch of the way, but now you've got these same folks suggesting that we should roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it was before the crisis. today my understanding is we're

going to have a hearing on richard core draw, who is my momny to head up the consumer protection bureau. he would be america's chief consumer watchdog when it comes to financial products. this is a guy that is regarded as the state pressure of ohio, the attorney general of ohio, republicans and democrats in ohio all say that he is a serious person who looks out for consumers. he has a good reputation. he wants to roll back the whole notion of having a consumer watchdog. you've got republican presidential candidates whose main economic policy proposals is we'll get rid of the designs are in order to prevent the

abuses that got us here in the first place. they will continue to be frustrated by it until they find out everybody is playing by the same sed of rules and that you're rewarded with responsibility and doing the right thing as opposed to gaming the system. so i'm going to fight every inch of the way here in washington to make sure we have a consumer watchdog preventing abuse of practices by the financial sector. i will be supportive of banks doing the right thing by their customers. we need them to help do what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing businesses and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. but until the american people see that happening, yes, they

are going to continue to express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules. [ inaudible question ]. you know, what i think is that the american people understand that not everybody has been following the rules. that wall street is an example of that. that folks who are working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that that used to be the essence of the american dream. that's how you got ahead, the old fashioned way. and these days a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded. and that's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like,

once again, they're getting back to some old fashioned values in which if you're a banker, then you are making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products, that are building the economy and benefiting everybody. jake tapper. >> thank you, mr. president. just a follow-up on jackie's question. so many people on wall street do not poll the rules, but your administration hasn't been very aggressive in prosecuting. i don't think any executives have gone to jail despite the

corruption that's taken place. also, as you're watching the cylindra, i'm wondering if it gives you any pause about any of the decision making going on in your administration. some of the e-mails the democrats put out indicating that people at the office of management and budget were concerned about the department of energy, some of the e-mails going on with the attorney general saying he didn't know about the details of fast and furious. are you worried at all about how this is -- how your administration is running? >> well, first on the issue of -- on the issue of prosecutions on wall street, the biggest problems about the collapse of lehman's and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn't necessarily legal,

it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless. that's exactly why we needed to pass dodd-frank, to prevent some of these practices. making mob is the job. if there are loopholes to be had, they will take advantage of it. without commenting on particular prosecutions, obviously, that's not my job, that's the attorney general's job. you know, i think part of people's frustrations, part of my frustration was a lot of practices that should not have been allowed weren't necessarily against the law. but they had a huge destructive impact. and that's why it was important for us to put in place financial rules that protect the american

people from reckless decision making and irresponsible behavior. now, with respect to cylindra and fast and furious, i think i've been very clear that i have complete confidence in attorney general holder in how he handles his office. he has been very aggressive in gun running and cash transactions that are going to these transactional drug cartels in mexico. there's been a lot of frustration in mexico on this front. he's indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in fast and furious. certainly i was not. and i think both he and i would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the united states of america. he's assigned an inspector

general to look into how exactly this happened and i have complete confident in him and i have complete confidence in the process to figure out who, in fact, was responsible for that decision and how it got me. csolyndra, this is a long program that prematdates me tha had support from republicans and democrats, as well. the idea is pretty straightforward. if you were going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we have to dominate cutting edge technologies, we have to dominate cutting edge manufacture. clean energy is part of that package of technologies of the future that have to be based here in the united states if we're going to be able to skeet.

a lot of these small start-ups, they can get angel investors, they can get several million dollars to get a company going. but it's very hard for them to scale up if these are particularly cutting edge technologies. it's hard for them to find investors. part of what's happening is china and europe, other companies are putting enormous subsidies into these companies and giving them incentives to move offshore, even if the technology was developed here in the united states. they end up going to china because the chinese governments say we're going to help you get started, we'll help you scale up, we'll give you low interest loans or no-interest loans, we will give you siding, when he will do whatever it takes for you to get started here. that's part of the reason why a lot of technology that's developed here, we've now lost the lead in, solar energy, wind energy and so what the loan

guarantee program was designed to do was to close that gap and say let's see if we can help some of those folks locate here and create jobs here in the united states. now, we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program was not a guaranteed system. but the overall portfolio has been successful. it has allowed us to help companies, for example, start advanced battery manufacturing here in the united states. it's helped to create jobs. there were going to be some companies that did not work out. solyndra was one of them. but the process by which the decision was made was on the merits, it was straightforward. of course there are going to be debates internally, you know, when you're dealing with something as complicated as this. but i have confidence that the decisions were made based on what would be good for the american economy and the

american people and putting people back to work. by the way, let me make one last point about this. i heard there was a republican member of congress who is engaging in oversight on this. and despite the fact that all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know what? we can't compete against china when it comes to solar energy. well, you know what? i don't buy that. i'm not going to surrender to other countries, technology k l lead that can end up determining whether we're building that in this country. so we're going to have to keep on pushing hard to make sure the manufacturing is located here, new businesses are located here and new technologies are developed here. and they're going to be times when it doesn't work out, but i'm not going to cave to the competition when they have

heavily subsidizing all these industries. [ inaudible question ]. >> and let me say this, the president can't go around prosecuting somebody. if somebody has engaged in fraudulent actions, they need to be prosecuted. if they violated laws on the books, they need to be prosecuted. and highways the attorney general's job and i know that attorney general holder, u.s. attorneys all across the country, they take that job very seriously. >> thank you, mr. president. you just spoke of the need for banks to start lending. you talked earlier about how

creative they can be in chasing profit. and yet earlier in the week you said that banks, quote, don't have some inherent right to just get a certain amount of profit. you also said in that interview that you can stop them. how do you plan on stopping them from charging this $5 fee or whatever the fee is? and do you think that your government has a right to dictate how much profits american companies make? >> i absolutely do not think that. the -- i was trying to make a broader point, which is that people have been using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more, right? basically, the argument they have made is, well, you know what? this hidden fee was prohibited and so we'll find another fee to make up for it. now, they have that right, but it's not a good practice. it's not necessarily fair to

consumers. and my main goal is to make sure that we've got a consumer watchdog this place who is letting consumers know what fair practices are, making sure that transactions are transparent, and making sure that banks have to compete for customers based on the quality of their service and good prices. now, the frustrating thing that we have right now is that you've got folks over in congress, republicans who said that they see their role as eliminating any prohibitions on any practices for financial companies. and i think that's part of the frustration that the american people feel because they've just gone through a period in which they were seeing a bunch of hidden fees, rate hikes that they didn't know about, fine print that they could not understand. that's true for credit cards,

that's true for mortgages. it contributed to overall weakness in the economy. and yes, i think it is entirely appropriate for the government to have some oversight role to make sure consumers are protected. so banks and any business in america can price their products any way they want. that's how the free market works. as long as there's transparency and accountability and consumers understand what they're getting and there are going to be instances where a policy judgment is made that, you know what? there's certain prices that just aren't fair. and, you know, that's how the market has always operated. >> -- wasn't actually prevent the fees? >> i think what the consumer finance production bureau could do is to make sure that consumers understood exactly what they were getting, exactly

what was happening, and i think that congress could make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain practice was fair or not. david nokamura. >> thank you, mr. president. just following up on jake's question about solyndra, the loan program, guaranteed loan program that you talked about was giving out $38 billion in guaranteed loans and promised to save or create 65,000 jobs, green jobs in clean energy. and there's been reports that actually only 3500 new jobs have been created in that center. why is that industry been so slow to respond to the investment that your administration has provided? and what do you see going forward as to how it will respond? >> well, you know, i think that what has been true historically

is that businesses that rely on new technologyies a lot of time it's going to take a while before they get takeoff. and there are a lot of up front investments that have to be made and research and capital and so forth, a lot of barriers for companies that are trying to break in. keep in mind that clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies. and, you know, traditional energy is still cheaper in a lot of ways. the problem is running out, it's polluting, and we know that demand is going to keep on increasing so that if we don't prepare now, if we don't invest now, if we don't get on top of technologies now, we're going to be facing 20 years from now china and india having a billion new drivers on the road, the

trend lines in terms of oil prices, coal, etcetera going up, the impact on the planet increasing, and we're not just going to be able to start when all heck is breaking loose and say, boy, we'd better find some new energy sources. so in the meantime, we have to make these investments, but that makes it more difficult for these companies to succeed. what is another a problem is that other countries are subsidizing these industries much more aggressively than we are. hundreds of billions of dollars the chinese government is pouring into the clean energy sector partly because they're projecting what is going to happen ten or 20 years from now. so, look, i have confidence in american businesses and american technology and american scientistes and entrepreneurs being able to win that competition. we are not going to be

duplicating the kind of system that they have in china where they are basically state run banks giving money to state run companies and ignoring losses and ignoring, you know, bad management. but there is a role to play for us to make sure that these companies can at least have a fighting shot. and it does mean that there are going to be some that aren't successful and it's going to be an uphill climb for some. obviously, it's very difficult for all companies right now to succeed when the economy is as soft and as weak as it is. >> for members in particular that veterans -- administration that government backed loan with $5 million in that company might not be a wise use of taxpayers money. do you think that your administration is so eager for companies to succeed that it missed some of the initial

warnings? >> i will tell you even for those projects under this loan guarantee program that have ended up being successful, there are those in the marketplace who have been doubtful. so there is always going to be a debate about whether this particular approach to this particular technology is going to be successful or not. and all i can say is that the department of energy made these decisions based on their best judgment about what would make sense. and, you know, with the nature of these programs are going to be ones in which, you know, for every success there may be one that does not work out as well. but that's exactly what the loan guarantee program was designed by congress to do. it was take betts on these areas where we need to make sure that we're maintaining our lead. bill plant. >> thank you, mr. president.

anybody on capitol hill will say that there's no chant that the american jobs act in its current state passes either house. and you've been out of the campaign trail banging away at them saying, pass this bill. >> right. >> and it begins, sir, to look like you're campaigning and like you're following the harry truman model against a do-nothing congress instead of negotiating. are you negotiating? will you? >> i am always open to negotiations. what is also true is they need to do something. i mean, i'm not -- look, the -- bill, i think it is very clear that if members of congress come in and say, all right, we want to build infrastructure, here is the way we think we can do it. we want to put construction workers back to work. we've got some ideas. i am ready, eager to work with

them. they say, we've got this great idea for putting teachers back in the classroom, it's a little different than what you've proposed in the jobs bill, i'm ready, eager to work with them. but that's not what we're hearing right now. what we're hearing is that their big ideas, the ones that make sense are ones we're already doing. they've given me a list of, well, here is the republican job creation ideas. let's pass free trade agreements. it's great that we're passing these free trade agreements. we put them forward, i expect bipartisan support. i think it's going to be good for the american economy. but it's not going to meet the challenge of 9% unemployment. or an economy that is currently weakening. it's not enough. patent reform, very important for our long-term competitiveness. there's nobody out there who actually thinks that that is

going to immediately fill the needs of people who are out of work. or strengthen the economy right now. so what i've tried to do is say, here are the best ideas i've heard. not just from partisans, but from independent economists. these are the ideas most likely to create jobs now and strengthen the economy right now. and tease what the american people are looking for. and the response from republicans has been, no. although they haven't given a good reason why they're opposed to putting construction workers back on the job or teachers back in the classroom. and if you ask them, okay, if you're not for that, what are you for? trade has already been done. patent reform has been done. what else? the answer we're getting right now is, well, we're going to

roll back all these obama regulations. so their big economic plan to put people back to work right now is to roll back financial protections and allow banks to charge hidden fees on credit cards again or weaken consumer watch dogs? or alternatively, they've said, we'll roll back regulations that make sure we have clean air and clean water. eliminate the epa. does anybody thinking that is going to meet the challenges of a global economy that is weakening? with all these forces coming into play? here is a little homework assignment for folks.

have it assessed by the same independent economists that assessed our jobs plan. these independent comments say that we could grow the economy as much as 2% and as many as 1.9 million on the job. i think it would be interesting to have them is do the same job. some people have those economists and vault wheconomist s evaluate what over the next two years the republican jobs plan would do. i'll be interested in the answer. i think everybody here, you know, i see some smirks in the audience because you know that it's not going to be real robust. and so, bill, the question then is will congress do something? if congress does something, then i can't run against the do-nothing congress.

ifdo-nothing congress. if congress does nothing, then it's not a matter of me running against them. i think the american people will run them out of town because they are frustrated and they know we need to do something big and something bold. now the american people are also concerned about making sure that we have a government that lives within its means, which is why i put forward a plan that would also reduce our deficit and our debt. in a more aggressive way than what the special committees been charged with. folks want to talk about corporate tax reform. i've already said, i'm happy to engage with them on corporate tax reform. i'm happy to engage with them working to see what we can do to streamline and simplify our tax code, eliminate all the loopholes, eliminate these special interest carve-outs and

potentially lower rates in the process while raising more revenue. i am happy to negotiate with them on a whole host of issues but right now we've got an emergency, and the american people are living that emergency out every single day and they have been for a long time. they are working really hard and if they're not on the job, then they're working really hard to find a job and they're losing their homes and their kids are having to drop out of school because they can't afford student loans and they're putting off visiting a doctor because when they lost their job they lost their health insura e insurance. they are struggling. and as a consequence, by the way, all of us are struggling. even those who are well off. the irony is the same folks that the republicans claim to be protecting, the well off, the millionaires and billionaires, they'd be doing better, they'd be making more money if ordinary

americans had some money in their pockets and were out there feeling more confident about the economy. that's been the lesson of our history. when folks in the middle and at the bottom are doing well, the folks at the top do even better. >> -- only leverage you have, sir? is. >> look. we have a democracy and right now john boehner's the speaker of the house and mitch mcconnell is the republican leader and all i can do is make the best arguments and mobilize the american people so that they're responsive. so far they haven't been responsive to not just me but public opinion. we saw that during the debt ceiling vote. but we're just going to keep on making the case. but i guess what i'm saying though here, bill, and i said this when i made my speech at

the joint session, the election is 13, 14 months away. i would love nothing more than to not have to be out there campaigning because we were seeing constructive action here in congress. that's my goal. that's what i'm looking for. but i'm also dealing with a republican majority leader who said that his number one goal was to beat me. not put americans back to work, not grow the economy, not help small businesses expand, but to defeat me. and he's been saying that now for a couple of years. so, yeah, i've got to go out and enlist the american people to see if maybe he'll listen to them if he's not listening to me. where's matt. >> thank you, mr. president.

one question on the economy and one on foreign policy. the senate has taken up today a bill aimed at pressuring china to let its currency rise. what's your position on that bill? would you veto or sign it should it hit your desk on the foreign minister front, do you agree with admiral mullen's accusation in that pakistan's intelligence agency has used the haqqani network as a virtual arm and what if any consequences, up to and including a cut off of aid, would you be willing to consider? >> obviously we've been seeing a remarkable transformation of china over the last two decades. and it's helped to lift millions of people out of poverty in china. we have stabilized our relationship with china in a healthy way. but what is also true is that china has been very aggressive

in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries particularly the united states. and i have said that publicly but i've also said it privately to chinese leaders. and currency manipulation is one example of it or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate and that makes their exports cheaper and that makes our exports to them more expensive. so we've seen some improvement, some slight appreciation over the last year but it's not enough. it's not just currency though. we've also seen, for example, intellectual property,

technologies that were created by u.s. companies with a lot of investment, a lot of up-front capital, taken, not protected properly by chinese firms. and we've pushed china on that issue as well. ultimately i think that you can have a win-win trading relationship with china. i'm very pleased that we're going to be able to potentially get a trade deal with south korea. but i believe what i think most americans believe -- which is trade is great as long as everybody's playing by the same rules. now the legislation that is being presented in congress is an effort to get at that. my main concern -- i've expressed this to senator schumer -- is whatever tools we put in place, let's make sure

that these are tools that can actually work, that they're consistent with our international treaties and obligations. i don't want a situation where we're just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they're probably not going to be upheld by the world trade organization, for example, and then suddenly u.s. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions. we've got to -- i think we've got a strong case to make but we've just got to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be effective. last point is, my administration's actually been more aggressive than any in recent years in going after some of these practices. we've brought very aggressive enforcement actions against china for violations in the tire case, for example, where it's been upheld by the world trade organization that they were engaging in unfair trading practices, and that's given companies here in the united states a lot of relief. so my overall goal is i believe

u.s. companies, u.s. workers, we can compete with anybody in the world. i think we can make the best products and a huge part of us winning the future -- a huge part of rebuilding this economy on a firm basis that's not just reliant on maxed out credit cards and a housing bubble and financial speculation. but is dependent upon us making things and selling things. i am absolutely confident that we can win that competition. but, in order to do it, we've got to make sure that we're aggressive in looking out for the interests of american workers and american businesses, and that everybody playing by the same rules and that we're not getting cheated in the process. that is a term of art, so the

treasury secretary i've got to be careful here, it's his job to make those decisions. there's -- but it is indisputable that they intervene heavily in the currency markets and that the r&b, their currency, is lower than it probably would be if they weren't making all those purchases in the currency markets to keep the rmb lower. with respect to pakistan, i have said that my number one goal is to make sure that al qaeda cannot attack the u.s. homeland and cannot affect u.s. interests around the world. we have done an outstanding job i think in going after directly

al qaeda in this border region between pakistan and afghanistan. we could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the pakistan government. and so on a whole range of issues they have been an effective partner with us. what is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of afghanistan and leave a stable government behind, one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic, that pakistan i think has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. and i think that they have hedged their bets in terms of what afghanistan would look like and part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some

of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in afghanistan after coalition forces have left. what we've tried to persuade pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have a stable afghanistan, that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable independent afghanistan. we've tried to get conversations between afghans and pakistans going more effectively than they have been in the past, but we've still got more work to do. and there is no doubt that there's some connections the pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find trouble. i've said that publicly and i've said it privately to pakistani officials as well.

they see their security interest threatened by an independent afghanistan, in part because they think it will ally itself to india and pakistan still considers india their mortal enemy. part of what we want to do is actually get pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards india would be in everybody's interests and would help pakistan actually develop, because one of the biggest problems we have in pakistan right now is poverty, illiteracy, a lack of developme development, civil institutions that aren't strong enough to deliver for the pakistani people. and in that environment, you've seen extremism grow, you've seen militanty that threatens the

pakistani government and pakistani people as well. trying to get that reorientation is something we continue to work on. it is not easy. >>. [ inaudible question ] >> we will constantly evaluate our relationship with pakistan based on is overall this helping to protect americans and our interests. we have a great desire to help the pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government and so i'd be hesitant to punish aid for flood victims in pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services. but there's no doubt that we're not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic

relationship with pakistan if we don't think that they're mindful of our interests as well. i'll make this last question. >> thank you, mr. president. >> caught you by surprise, huh? >> you did. what should european leaders do to resolve the sovereign debt crisis going forward? and second, how risky is this continued situation to the u.s. economy? and finally, do you feel that the european leaders have been negligent in pushing austerity too soon? >> those are good questions. the biggest headwind the american economy is facing right now is uncertainty about europe because it is affecting global

marke markets. the slowdown that we're seeing is not just happening here in the united states. it's happening everywhere. even in some of the emerging markets like china, you're seeing greater caution, less investment, deep concern. in some ways, you know, as frustrating as the financial sector has been here in the united states after the lehman collapse, the aggressive actions that were taken right after lehman's did help us to strengthen the financial sector and the banking sector in ways that the -- that europe did not fully go through. and uncertainty around greece and their ability to pay their debts runs on -- in the capital

markets on the debt that many of these southern european countries have been facing as well as ireland and portugal. all that's put severe strain on the world financial system. i speak frequently with chancellor merkel and president sarkozy. they are mindful of these challenges. i think they want to act to prevent a sovereign debt crisis from spinning out of control or seeing the potential break-up of the euro. i think they are very committed to the european project. but their politics is tough because essentially they've got to get agreement with not only their own parliaments, they've got to get agreement with 20 parliaments or 24 parliaments or

27 parliaments and engineering that kind of coordinated action is very difficult. but what i've been seeing over the last month is a recognition by yoeuropean leaders of the urgency of the situation and nobody is going to be affected more than they are if the situation spins out of control. i'm confident that they want to get this done. i think there is some technical issues that they're working on in terms of how they get a big enough -- how do they get enough firepower to let the markets know that they're going to be standing behind euro members whose who may be in a weaker position. but they've got to act fast and we've got a g-20 meeting coming

up in november. my strong hope is that by the time of that g-20 meeting that they have a very clear concrete plan of action that is sufficient to the task. it will have an effect. it is already having an effect here in the united states and it will continue to have an effect on our economy because the world is now interconnected in ways that it's never been before. and that's one of the biggest challenges we have post 2008 after this financial crisis is that america has always been -- well, over the last 20 years has been the engine for world economic growth. we were the purchasers of last resort, we were the importers of last resort. we would stimulate our economies and our american consumers would buy stuff around the world,nd so if they got into trouble they

could always say well we're going to sell to the u.s. well, we're not going through a situation where families are cutting back and trying to reduce their debts. businesses are more cautious and the u.s. government obviously has its own fiscal challenges. i mean we've got to make sure that we're living within our means although we've got to do it gradually and not in ways that immediately affect a fragile economy. so what that means is europe is not going to be able to export its way out of this problem. they're going to have to fix that problem and part of the goal that i've been trying to promote for the last two years and i'll repeat at the g-20 is more balanced economic growth worldwide. we've got to get into a posture where the u.s. is always going to be a big market and we're going to welcome goods from all around the world but we've also got to be selling goods around the world.

we can't just be running up our debt in order to help other folks' economies. we've got to have, as not only families, our businesses and our government, we've got to make sure that we're being prudent and we're producing here in the united states. by the way, that's what's going to create strong middle class jobs here in the united states. i think part of what's going on for the country generally is this sense of what a lot of that debt that had been built up prior to 2008, that we were living on borrowed time because the underlying fundamentals of the economy weren't as strong as they needed to be. that's why not only do we have to put americans back to work now, but we've also got to keep on reforming our education system so it is producing the highest skilled graduates in the world.

that's why we've got to keep on investing in basic research and science. that's why we've got to make sure we're rebuilding our infrastructure, that's why we've got to have a smarter energy policy. that's a huge source of our having to import from our countries instead of being able to export to other countries. all those things are going to be important and all of those things are going to be challenging, they're going to be hard. but right now we've got the problem of putting people back to work. that's why congress needs to pass this jobs bill. and last point i'll make. if bill's right and everybody on capitol hill's cynical and saying there's no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we're just going to keep on going at it. i want everybody to be clear. my intention is to insist that each part of this, i want an

explanation as to why we shouldn't be doing it. each component part. putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, putting teachers back in the classroom, tax cuts for small businesses, and middle class families, tax breaks for our veterans, we will just keep on going at it and hammering away until something gets done. and i would love nothing more than to see congress act so aggressively that i can't campaign against them as a do-nothing congress. all right? thank you very much, everybody. >> president obama wrapping up his press conference. it lasted a little bit more than an hour taking questions about the economy with only the exception of one question dealing with pakistan. the president clearly putting the onus on congress to answer to this jobs bill and why

republicans do not support the jobs bill. the president trying to portray himself as someone who has an open door to the white house, one who is negotiating instead of campaigning, and even offering, ali, homework assignment to all of us to take the jobs bill, take a look at it, go to these economists, have them analyze it and prove him wrong that this is not going to create some 1.9 million jobs for the american people. what did you hear in the president's case that he made here, first of all, and secondly, was there anything that you heard that would allow the republicans to jump on board here and to negotiate, to compromise, on his jobs act? >> largely to your second question first, no, not really. in fact, there was nothing particularly surprising. the one piece of news we were sort of expecting to hear he kind of buried about the 5.6% tax on people -- on over $1 million worth of income. i'll tell you -- and i don't

mean this in a bad way -- it seemed like a bit of an economics lesson, explaining to reporters supply and demand and basic economics and using the argument that so many of the things that the republicans have been demanding, particularly to see in something like a jobs bill, he argued don't create jobs. he says if you want to reduce regulation on air quality and climate or you want to reduce regulation on financial institutions, how does that create jobs in the short term? he was sort of challenging them to do that. he made that point. he spoke very little about the actual tax increases and there wasn't a lot of challenge from the reporters which leads me to believe that people either think that the jocks bill rebs bill r dead in the water or realize that most americans according to our polling at least support the idea of a tax on people making more than $1 million. he also was asked a couple of times about the occupy wall street protests and he made the point that one thing that would help protect consumers against financial institutions and their

behavior would be this consumer financial protection board which the republicans stood in the way of initially the formation of, and then the appointment of elizabeth warren to the head of and now the appointment of a new candidate. so he made the point that there is some avenue whereby consumers can feel more protected from financial institutions, but that the republicans haven't gotten on board to support that. so sort of a wide-ranging economics lesson, if you will. but i don't know that he won any republicans over with it. >> i'm not even sure he won democrats over as well. i want to go back to our wolf blitzer out of washington. that was really the key to this speech here, wolf. he was supposed to be winning over those senate democrats who were looking at that millionaire tax as potentially some sort of point that -- jumping point off that they could sign on to this jobs act without making it look somehow that they were tax being the middle class because that was the main problem they had with the obama plan initially, those making $200,000, $250,000 and having their taxes go up. now he's signing on to something

else, that taxes those millionaires. is that actually good enough? >> it's a good question and it is unclear what's going to happen. there's no doubt the president made it clear in this news conference, suzanne, that he favors -- he's willing to go along with this surcharge, this surtax for millionaires, people making more than $1 million. they'd pay an additional 5.6% on any income over $1 million. two take effect not next year but in 2013 and he says it would cover the nearly $450 billion of the jobs bill. candy crowley and gloria borger are here. gloria, right now he doesn't have the votes -- certainly doesn't have the votes in the house of representatives but as suzanne points out, there are a whole bunch of democrats in the senate who aren't willing to go along with his legislation. >> they aren't willing to go along with his legislation and some centrist democrats aren't ready to go along with the harry reid/chuck schumer idea of this

5.5% surtax either. what the president said today he endorsed it but it wasn't an overwhelming endorsement. he said it was, "fine by me." i guess that's whatever it takes to get democrats unified to vote for something is "fine by me," he also said the economy is weaker right now than it has been. but at this point, wolf, just in terms of the jobs bill, i don't see how they get something passed. it seems to me like they may end up with a much more circumscribed bill again that essentially extends a payroll tax cut and they figure out a way to pay for that. but i don't see either side giving right now on their issues. >> you heard the president end the news conference and he said it a few times through the news conference, candy. he's ready to do what harry trum didn't, give them hell over there, fight against the so-called do-nothing congress. he says i'd like nothing better than if they did something but if they don't i'm going to hammer away. that's a direct quote. >> it is a direct quote and he's

already been hammering away. the politics of this are probably great for the democrats. all the polls show that people think millionaires, rich people, ought to pay more in taxes. they are convinced that it is -- tax system is unfair so politically the president is saying, hey, this is fine with me. if they want to go ahead and do this millionaire's surtax. i think it is where the democrats want to have this fight because policy was nothing has changed by this. nothing changes. the republicans will still vote against this in the house and they control the house. by the way, i'm not overly sure he's going to pick up all his democrats with this. i don't think that's in fact in the cards. and what we saw -- the reason they had to move to this approach anyway instead of the president's approach for paying for it is that there were senators like mary landrieu, a democrat from louisiana, who said, no, no, no, we're not just going to close oil company loopholes. she obviously has a lot of oil companies in louisiana that move

that economy. this is an attempt to try to bring the democrats on board, give the democrats a rallying cry. whether or not it brings them on, it will bring on most of them, clearly. but policy has not changed and the prospects for this bill have not changed. i think they're pretty close to nil in its totality. >> but here's the problem for the president -- 6 out of 10 people disapprove of the way he's handling the economy. if the economy continues to go in the wrong direction and congress looks like it's doing nothing, he will run against the congress but people will also blame him. >> one of the problems, suzanne, that the president has is that he said often over the past few years that during a time of economic distress that's no time to raise taxes. this millionaire's surtax, if you will, wouldn't go into effect until 2013. he did point out though, he said in his words, there's no doubt that the u.s. economy now is weaker, is a lot weaker than it was at the start of 2011. and a lot of economists are anticipating it is about to get even weaker given the economic distress that's unfolding in europe.

there are a lot of problems out there, suzanne. >> i thought it was interesting, too, wolf, the fact that he did not have to mention president bush's name but said prior to 2008 is when we had all of those problems regarding the debt and so therefore, once again, making the case to the american people what he inherited and saying that he still, at the same time, has some work to do. thank you very much, wolf. appreciate your time. candy, gloria as well, it was a great discussion. here what's ahead on the rundown. steve jobs delivered a remarkable commencement address at stanford university back in 2005. we're going to play it for you from start to finish. and we have the answer to a big political question. sarah palin says she's not going to run for president next year. and then, more tape of michael jackson's slurred speech is played at the trial of dr. conrad murray. all that coming up after the break. coffee doesn't have vitamins... unless you want it to.

new splenda® essentials™ no calorie sweetener with b vitamins, the first and only one to help support a healthy metabolism. three smart new ways to sweeten. same great taste. new splenda® essentials™. should we order panda blossom, panda moon... how about chinese at home with wanchai ferry? you can make it in just 14 minutes. mmmh, orange chicken. great. i didn't feel like going out anyway. [ male announcer ] wanchai ferry. restaurant quality chinese in your grocer's freezer. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times.

good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ aspercreme breaks the grip, with maximum-strength medicine and no embarrassing odor.

break the grip of pain with aspercreme. flags are flying at half-staff today at apple's headquarters. sandra endo joins us live from the apple campus in cupertino, california. sandra, the memorial i know is growing there. what are people saying about steve jobs today? >> reporter: well, suzanne, here at apple headquarters in cupertino it is pretty much the start of the work day for everyone here and for the past hour or so we've seen employees coming to work and they've been instructed not to talk to the media. however, we did speak to one employee off camera who describe the mood obviously as somber. a very sad day for everyone. as you mentioned, that memorial people are coming here, fans, apple consumers, and people in the community to lay down flowers, cards, candles -- and apples all in tribute to steve

jobs. one person we spoke to said his legacy will be how his innovations really changed the world. >> just a visionary. a visionary. you know? a once in a lifetime type of human being. it is incredible that he was -- that we got to experience this living in cupertino. this in itself is just a very historical experience. i'm just wondering why this place isn't flooded with people. it is just a fascinating occurrence. you know? >> reporter: now we know that apple is going to be holding an internal private memorial for the co-founder of this company. they say it is not going to be a sad, somber experience but more so a celebration of his life. suzanne? >> how are they moving forward -- the company and employees moving forward? >> reporter: well, that's going to be a big question in the out years. when you think about it, jobs knew this day was coming and he built a very strong team around him. he stepped down as ceo in

august. gave the reins over to a long-time deputy. and it is interesting to note in a memo sent out to employees yesterday that tim cook said that everyone will really be working hard to make sure steve jobs' vision is carried through and they will work hard to make that dedication to his vision. so clearly they are hoping to live on in terms of make his spirit live on here in the company. of course he was the heart and soul of apple but here, a very somber mood but his spirit and legacy will definitely survive. suzanne? >> all right, thank you so much, sandra. i want you to listen to this. he said the only way to do great work is to love what you do. that was part of his message. steve jobs' message to graduates during a commencement speech at stanford, university. it was such an inspiring message, we're going to bring that to you the entire speech, in just a few minutes. president obama pitches a new tax on those making more than a million dollars a year.

find out how the stock market is reacting. we go live to the new york stock exchange. t driver and he's... not so much. well, for a driver like you, i would recommend our new snapshot discount. this little baby keeps track of your great driving habits, so you can save money. amazing! it's like an extra bonus savings. hah-hah! he's my ride home. how much can a snapshot discount save you? call or click today. is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal.

so how's the stock market reacting to the president's news conference? our alison kosik is at the new york stock exchange. reaction from wall street? >> reporter: you know what? i've talked to several traders since president obama wrapped up his news conference and you know where the confidence is? the confidence actually is in the part of the package, the infrastructure part of the package. you're seeing that in the numbers actually. shares of caterpillar, alcoa, manufacturing and construction stocks are up anywhere from 3% to 6%. the thinking is that that would have the best chance of passing especially if you compare it to the tax measures.

this part of the package of course would go to rebuilding roads, bridges, schools and airports and what wall street really likes to hear about this is something like that, the infrastructure part of the package. it immediately creates jobs. we're also seeing the market higher today. the dow's up 100 points because of positive news coming out of europe. the european central bank is the equivalent of our federal reserve has announced a bond buying program which means that it is going to pour some liquidity into the eurozone. there has been a lot of worry about how banks would fare if greece would default. so this shows that the european central bank has the backs of the banks there. once again the dow up 107 points. back to you. >> good news. thank you. sarah palin says there is no looking back. she's decided to say no to a run for the white house next year. we're going to hear what a prominent tea party activist has to say about palin's decision.

when an investment lacks discipline, it's never this obvious. introducing investment discipline etfs from russell. visit russelletfs.com r a prospectus, containing the investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses and other information. read and consider it carefully before investing.

speculation over sarah palin is over. she has decided not to run for the white house next year. palin says she can be on the right path without being a candidate. amy kramer is chairman of the tea party express and with us now. she's one of the founders of the tea party movement. first of all, your reaction to palin's announcement. are you disappointed? >> i am disappointed and a lot of people are disappointed. but she made the right decision for her and her family and we respect that. i think she's actually going to have more of an impact in this

election with the candidates that we do have and then also she'll be able to focus on the house and senate. >> do you think this is it for her? was this that window of opportunity that she could have decided, hey, i'm going to go for this? or could we see her run again in perhaps four, eight, 12 years? >> oh, no, she's still young. she still has plenty of life left back in her and i absolutely think she could decide in the future she would run. >> president obama just held this news conference. i want your reaction to some of what he said. he's signing up for this idea of a millionaire tax, a surtax for those who make a million dollars or more. do you think that that is a good compromise to go ahead and to pay for his jobs bill that way as opposed to increasing taxes for those who make more than $200,000 or $250,000 a year? >> actually, i don't think it is a good idea and i think he's playing class warfare. there are a number of people that have signed these pledges that they're not going to raise

taxes. they know they have no hope of getting it through and it is another thing that they can blame republicans. look, this is not going to create jobs. this is going to pay for jobs for the next 12 to 18 months and suzanne, that's not going to help our economy. what we need is our corporate tax rate cut. we don't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and more of a permanent solution so that businesses will hire. this is not -- it's more stimulus and we've seen it before with the previous stimulus package and it is not going to work. >> is there any point of negotiations or compromise with the republicans here? because so far what the president is saying is that he's putting the onus on republicans, he's saying, look, you figure this out, you come up with a better plan if you don't like my plan. >> well, what i say to that is i believe today is 890 days since the democrat-controlled senate has passed a budget. the house has put forth the paul ryan plan, a cut cap and balance, i mean the republicans have put plan after plan out there and the democrats say no. and so we're going to have to

come together but the point is, the american people are tired of this and it is not washington's responsibility to create jobs. it is the private sector's responsibility to create jobs. that's where the jobs come from and i think we need to cut the corporate tax rate. i think we need to lift some of these burdensome regulations so that businesses can have some confidence in the system and go forward and hire people. >> back to the campaign real quick here because we don't have a lot of time. but now that you've got chris christie who's not in the race, sarah palin not in the race, who's the front-runner here? who are you going to back? >> i mean herman cain is surprising us all. we're not tea party express is not ready to support anyone right now. the movement hasn't really coalesce behind anybody. but herman cain is -- he is doing a major thing right now. he's got a lot of momentum, a lot of people like him. he's a straight talker. he's a businessman and that's what people like. he knows how to run a business, he knows how to create jobs, he knows about profits that you can't spend your way into

prosperity and he's got some traction right now so i think he's one to watch. >> sounds like an endorsement almost. >> well, i mean -- no, it's not an endorsement. i think that the field is still very volatile. but we have a lot of work to do, especially if these states keep moving these primaries and caucuses up. >> amy kramer, thanks so much. dramatic and emotional testimony in the conrad murray trial. jurors hear a taped conversation between dr. murray and michael jackson. at bayer, we're re-inventing aspirin for pain relief. with new extra-strength bayer advanced aspirin. it has microparticles, enters the bloodstream faster and rushes relief to the site of pain. it's clinically proven to relieve pain twice as fast. new bayer advanced aspirin. if you think even the best bed can only lie there.

ask me what it's like when my tempur-pedic moves. talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america. ask me about my tempurpedic advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. these are real tempur advanced ergo owners. find one for yourself. try your friends on facebook. see what they have to say unedited. ask me what it's like to get a massage any time you want. tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait until i'm too old to enjoy this. start asking real owners. treat yourself to the ultimate sleep experience and save up to $400-during the tempur ergo savings event. plus, visit tempurpedic.com for full details on our 4 years special financing. don't wait-the tempur ergo savings event ends october 16. visit tempurpedic.com now. temur-pedic the most highly recommended bed in america.

i tell you what i can spend. i do my best to make it work. i'm back on the road safely. and i saved you money on brakes. that's personal pricing.

the manslaughter trifle michael jackson's doctor, conrad murray, began its eighth day just a few minutes ago. an investigator from the coroner's office is now on the stand. she's been describing the 19 bottles of medication found in jackson's bedroom the day he died. prosecutors also played the entire recording of jackson's slurring his words. he talks about building the biggest children's hospital in the world as his legacy.

>> the doctor who did the autopsy on jackson's body is also expected to testify today. this week we've been bringing you investigative reports on modern day slavery. a cnn exclusive series about factory workers in southeast asia who have to pay their employers in order to be free. we're not going to be able to bring you part three of the s r series by cnn's dan rivers because of all of the news of the day but we will bring that to you tomorrow. many fans of afternoonle co-founder steve jobs are remembering him today by sharing quotes from a speech that he gave six years ago to stanford university graduates. we're going to play the entire commencement address after the break.

steve jobs' kree y kree yea tift and innovation touched thousands of lives. we were so impressed with this speech we wanted you to hear it in its entirety. here's part one. >> i'm honored to be with you today for your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. truth be told, i never graduated from college and this is the closest i've ever gotten to a college graduation. today i want to tell you three stories from my life. that's it. no big deal. just three stories. the first story is about connecting the dots. i dropped out of reed college after the first six months but

then stayed around as another drop-in for another 18 months or so before i really quit. so why did i drop out? it started before i was born. my biological mother was a young unwed graduate student and she decided to put me up for adoption. she felt very strongly thashd be adopted by college graduates so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. except that when i popped out, they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. so my parents who were on a waiting list got a call in the middle of the night asking we've got an unexpected baby boy. do you want him? they said of course. my biological mother found out later that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. she refused to sign the final adoption papers. she only relented a few months

later when my parents promised that i would go to college. this was the start in my life. and 17 years later i did go to college. but i naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as stanford and all of my working class parents savings were being spent on my college tuition. after six months, i couldn't see the value in it. i had no idea what i wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. and here i was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. so i decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out okay. it was pretty scary at the time but looking back, it was one of the best decisions i ever made. the minute i dropped out, i could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me and begin dropping in on the ones that looked far more

interesting. it wasn't all romantic. i didn't have a dorm room so i slept on the floor in friends' rooms. i returned coke bottles for the 5-cent deposits to buy food with and i would walk the seven miles across town every sunday night to get one good meal a week at the hare krishna sem tal. temple. i loved it. much of what i stumbled on to based on my intuition turned out to be priceless later on. reed college at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. throughout the campus, every poster, every label on every drawer was beautifully hand caligraphed. because i had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, i decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. i learned about type faces, about varying the amount of space between letter combinations, about what makes

typography great. it was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture and i found it fascinating. none of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. but ten years later when we were designing the first mcintosh computer, it all came back to me and we designed it all in to the mac. it was the first computer with beautiful typography. if i had never dropped in on that single course in college the mac would have never had multi. type faces or proportionally spaced fonts. and since windows copied the mac, it's likely no computer would ever have them. if i had never dropped out, i would have never dropped in on that calligraphy class and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when i was in college. but it was very, very clear

looking backwards ten years later. again, you can't connect the dots looking forward. you can only connect them looking backwards. so you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. you have to trust in something -- your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever -- because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart even when it leads you off the well-worn path and that will make all the difference. >> that's a beautiful speech. next, jobs tells stanford university graduates about life and death. verse mortgage today is the day. the day to breathe a little easier. the day to truly enjoy life again. hi, i'm robert wagner. over the years, so many folks who i've met told me that they'd love a chance to spend time with their grandkids or fix up their garden or just find a quiet piece of stream and fish the day away... only their finances just wouldn't give them that chance. a reverse mortgage can change all that. if you're over 62 and you own a home,

you can take an easy first step towards enjoying life more fully. call the number on your screen and we'll send you a free no-obligation dvd that has the straight facts about reverse mortgages. and if you want, you can also speak with one of our specialists to find out if it's the right choice for you. no pressure, no hard sell... just the facts. so, call now. you deserve to enjoy life again with a reverse mortgage. we're urban financial group. we're there when you need us.

here's the rest of apple co-founder steve jobs'

commencement address to the 2005 graduating class of stanford university. >> my second story is about love and loss. i was lucky. i found what i loved to do early in life. woz and i started apple in my parents' garage when i was 20. we worked hard and in ten years apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4,000 employees. we just released our finest creation -- the mcintosh, a year earlier -- and i just turned 30. and then i got fired. how can you get fired from a company you started? well, as apple grew, we hired someone who i thought was very talented to run the company with me and for the first year or so things went well. but then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. when we did, our board of directors sided with him and so at 30 i was out and very publicly out.

what had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone and it was devastating. i really didn't know what to do for a few months. i felt that i had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down, that i had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. i met with david packard and bob noice and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. i was a very public failure and i even thought about running away from the valley. but something slowly "late edition" began to dawn on me. i still loved what i did. the turn of events at apple had not changed one bit. i had been rejected but i was still in love. so i decided to start over. i didn't see it then but it turned out that getting fired from apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. the heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. it freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life. during the next five years i

started a company named next, another company named pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. pixar went on to create the world's first computer animated feature film, "toy story," and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. in a remarkable turn of events, apple bought next and i returned to apple and the technology we developed at next is at the heart of apple's current renaissance and lorene and i have a wonderful family together. i'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if i hadn't been fired from apple. it was awful tasting medicine but i guess the patient needed it. sometimes life's going to hit you in the head with a brick. don't lose faith. i'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that i loved what i did. you've got to find what you love and that is as truth for work as it is for your lovers. your work is going to fill a large part of your life and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is

great work and the only way to do great work is to love what you do. if you haven't found it yet, keep looking. and don't settle. as with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. and like any great relationship, it just gets better around better as the years roll on. so keep looking. don't settle. my third story is about death. when i was 17, i read a quote that went something like, "if you live each day as if it was your last, some day you'll most certainly be right." it made an impression on me. and since then, for the past 33 years, i have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself, if today were the last day of my life, would i want to do what i am about to do today?

and whenever the answer has been no for too many days in a row, i know i need to change something. remembering that i'll be dead soon is the most important tool i've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life, because almost everything, all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure, these things just fall away in the face of death. leaving only what is truly important -- remembering that you are going to die is the best way i know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. you are already naked. there is no reason not to follow your heart. about a year ago, i was diagnosed with cancer. i had a scan at 7:30 in the morning and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. i didn't even know what a pancreas was. doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable and that i should expect to live no longer than

three to six months. my doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in or, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. it means to try and tell your kids everything. you thought you'd have the next ten years to tell them in just a few months. it means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. it means to say your good-byes. i live with that diagnosis all day. later that evening, i had a biopsy where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestin intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and good a few cells from the tumor. i was sedated. but my wife who was there told me when they reviewed the cells under the microscope the doctor started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer which is curable with surgery. i had the surgery and thankfully i'm fine now.

this was the closest i've been to facing death and i hope it's the closest i get for a few more decades. having lived through it, i can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept. no one wants to die. even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. and yet death is the destination we all share. no one is ever escaped it. and that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. it's life's change agent. it clears out the old to make way for the new. right now the new is you. but some day not too long from now you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. sorry to be so dramatic, but it's quite true. your time is limited so don't

waste it living someone else's life. don't be trapped by dogma which is living with the results of other people's thinking. don't let the noise of other's opinions drowned out your own inner voice. and most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. they somehow already know what you truly want to become. everything else is secondary. when i was young, there was an amazing publication called "the whole earth catalog." which was one of the bibles of my generation. it was created by a fellow flamed stewart brand, not far from here in menlo park. he brought it to life with his poetic touch. this was in the late '60s before personal computers an desktop publishing so it was all made with type writers, scissors and

polaroid cameras. it was sort of like google in paper back form 35 years before google came along. it was idealistic, overflowing with neat tools an great notions. stewart and his team put out several issues of "the whole earth" catalog. and then when it had run its course they put out a final issue. it was the mid '1970s and i was your age. on the back cover of their final issues was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. beneath it were the words "stay hungry, stay foolish." it was their farewell message as they signed off. "stay hungry, stay foolish." and i have always wished that for myself. and now, as you graduate to begin anew, i wish that for you. stay hungry, stay foolish. thank you all very much.