but we're still going to be wrestling with the same problems of taxation, of income inequality, of whether we're going to have a have and have not society in this country. if we're going to have a thriving middle class, do we believe in manufacturing? do we think it's important for people to have a living wage in the manufacturing sector of america. and the president i think is working very hard and focused on trying to rebuild that sector of the economy which has suffered under republican rule. >> let's hear from a republican. >> sure. >> beverly is joining us from st. cloud, minnesota. good ahead, beverly. >> caller: i just have a comment for mr. schultz. it's very easy for him to say what transpired in wisconsin. first of all, i believe that with all the union stuff, that they bussed people in and got money from across the country. and the democrats always say how the republicans are getting all this help from outside. but in reality, it has always

been the unions and the that have brought in outsiders to the state of wisconsin. and if i was a wisconsinite, i would be upset about bringing all those people in and not letting their own state handle this. that's just my comment. >> and that's fair enough. that's fair enough there is no question that there are people -- in fact i had a gentleman call in my radio show yesterday. it was from a southern state, saying that, you know, he was so motived by what he saw on television that he went up to wisconsin to help out. so i don't -- i don't disagree with that. i think there are people that have been motived from all around the country. but with respect to the caller, you cannot defy the fact where the money is coming, and the money is 20-1 in favor of the republicans of what has been spent. and the story today in the mainstream media is that the democratic national committee still has not immediate a full-throated decision as to whether they're going to put in a half million for ground troops

to get the vote out for the democrats, which has been requested by the democratic party in wisconsin. so you're right there. is people that have come in to help wisconsin, no question about it. >> joe joins us from carmen, indiana, indiana caller. hi, joe. >> caller: hello. i'm so glad to talk to you. i'm a combat vet from vietnam. and my -- i believe that -- the lies they told us about the tonkin gulf. i fought for three years there. it's been a nightmare why whole life, ever since then. my next-door neighbor's son went over to kuwait, believing that the babies are being thrown out of the incubators. he got shot and killed in fallujah. my other friend over here, he lost his grandson over in pakistan. and it's pretty -- you know, it's pretty hard for us veterans, you know, to watch this, knowing that our country is the muscle for the

corporations. we're under corporate rule here. and veterans know they've been in war, we left iraq, and we just turned around and said hey, anybody want all this for practically nothing? and the seven sisters dove in there and paid less than a dollar a barrel for maybe 350 to 400 years of oil. well dropped 15 trillion and blood all over that sand. and they haven't renewsroom rated us one penny, and they have raised the prices on our gas. >> you can tell by the gentleman's voice that he is borderline distraught about what has happened to him in his lifetime. there is a lot of veterans out there. and you know, libby, that is one of the things that turned me politically some 15 years ago is i saw what was happening to the veterans in this country. why we have a fight over helping our veterans, a political fight over helping our veterans is just beyond me.

the va does a fabulous job, but we don't have enough of it. and we have got a -- hoards of servicemen and women coming back with post traumatic stress disorder. they need treatment. and, you know, we created this. we decided to go into iraq as a country. we as a country decided to do international intervention. and there is a long -- you can hear it in that gentleman's voice. there is a long, hard price to be paid for that. and for those of us who didn't go, and for those of us who weren't called on to go, we have to do our part to make sure that we do not push these veterans to the side like road kill, and we live up to our commitments as a country. and we must realize this should weigh on our lawmakers' minds that when they decide to do something like iraq or

afghanistan or whatever kind of things we do, we're committing not for the moment, we're committing for the long haul. and there a price tag with it. and there is going to have to be sacrifice from every american to meet our obligations. it's unfortunate. you know, i've met a lot of combat veterans. i've met a lot of people who have served this country that feel like they're being left behind. they feel like they're -- that the congress has forgotten them. and we can't. we just have to live up to our obligations. and the fact is we need more money in the treasury there is no question about it. >> a couple comments coming in on twitter, just weighing in. mary says we have plenty of examples through history that show us what gress income inequality gets us. we'll hear more as we go on. ed schultz is our guest, jack joins us next from indianapolis on our democrats line. go ahead, jack. >> caller: hi, ed. good to talk with you. >> thank you, jack. >> caller: i got a couple of questions for you.

and i used to watch you all the time when you were on earlier in the day. but in 2007 -- '08, you didn't go after dick foles very much with lehman brothers. i want to know why. maybe you weren't on the air at that time. >> i wasn't on television until april of 2009. and when i first got my job at msnbc, i was doing the 6:00 show. and i made a commitment that the ed show was going to lead every night with health care. it was the story of our time. it was a chance to do something for a lot of people. and so that was my focus when i first came to msnbc. so in reference to the story you're talking about, you're correct, i didn't. >> that was jack's call. now let's go to jack, republican in south dakota. hello, south dakota. >> caller: yeah, how are you doing. listen, i would just like to

point out a couple of things. mr. schultz, you're getting it all wrong, pal. for the first two years, who owned the congress? who owned the senate? the congress, the president. mr. obama. >> well, it's good to hear a voice from south dakota where i spent a lot of time in the midwest in my broadcast career. you're exactly right. the president had the white house, the house and the senate. he also had a record number of filibusters. he also had a minority party that stopped absolutely everything. i'm not making that stuff up, jack. that's just the way it is. >> let's hear from our next caller mark in anaheim, california, independent line. hi, mark. >> caller: hey, how are you doing? >> good. >> caller: ed, good to see you, man. you're looking a lot healthier. i see you on your nightly show. your blood vessels are sticking out of your forehead. you seem to be pretty angry on your broadcast. a couple comments. first off, earlier in the

program, you stated that spending is down. this is the type of comment that i see on your show almost every night. i'm trying to figure out how we get to a point where we're at 25% of the gdp with spending and that's down when traditionally our spending is 18% of gdp. and another thing you brought up earlier, i recommend you go out to opensecrets.org. it's a great site. it's independent. it goes and lists all the money being poured into our political process. >> okay. first of all, i don't think i'm angry when i'm on the air at night. i'm very passionate. that could be misconstrued by people who have a different political persuasion. as far as the money is concerned, it's easy to track. there is no way that the democrats are going to be able to keep up with the corporate money that is going to be thrown in this election cycle. and you would just be unfair to the facts if you were to say that citizens united hasn't been a major player in all of this.

what was the other thing he talked about? >> i think you got it. >> okay. you know, look, money and politics. there is a discussion, an undercurrent of discussion in this country that i think a lot of people know that's it's probably not achievable, but it's really what the people want. and that is public funding of campaigns. and if we really want the people's voices to be heard, there can't be the overspending and the skewing of the political process influenced by money. if you had publicly financed campaigns that had limitations to it where people actually had to get up and get away from the bullet points and actually answer questions with substantive answers and be forced to be vetted by the people, i think we would have a

different country. >> our caller mentioned opensecrets.org. it's run by the center for responsive politics and has information about lobbying elections, how money is spent in this country. a caller in our last segment asked us, he said he is a teacher. he said his students watch c-span and it's something they see a lot of on the house floor is a number that is thrown around. he wanted us to ask you about it. he said people talk about how for every dollar that the u.s. borrows, we're paying x amount of interest on it, a certain percentage of interest on it do you want to talk than and weigh in on what your concerns are about borrowing and how we actually end up spending a lot more money through that process? >> well, there is all kinds of numbers floating around. but let's get to the basics. we have a record trade deficit. we have a record deficit, record debt. we got a lot of things that are going through the roof there is no question inter. and spending is down under president obama. it's a fact.

the debt is down under president obama. taxes are down. that's what the republicans like. they like -- they like lower taxes. so the republicans have done when they were in the minority, they did a pretty good job of getting what they want, okay. now if we're going to fix all of this, there is number of things that we have to do. obviously we have to recommit in a big way to buy american, to manufacture in america, and to promote american loyalty when it comes to purchasing. that's one thing that could really help consumers have a tremendous amount of power. we've seen that in the social media in our business when certain broadcasters have the light put on them for dissatisfaction with the public. let's face it. the social media is changing a lot of conversation in this country in action. but for us to do this, we've got to focus on jobs. we've got to focus on investment. and we've got to reduce spending. we can't be invading countries

to the tune of $5 billion a week. and all of these things have taken a toll. to get it all back, it's going to take time. and i think that we're going to have to make the 1 and 2% income earners in this country go back to the old rates of 39%. and a lot of people say to me when i say this, they say well how much do you want me to pay? it's not a question of how much we want you to pay, it's what the country needs you to do. just like that veteran that called earlier that was somewhat distraught. i mean, look, we have to do our part. we have to pay a little bit more, you know. i used to be a middle classer. i've had good fortune in my life, running businesses and doing what i do in the media. i'm in the top 2%. we need to pay more. you can take from 36 to 39% in my lifetime. it wouldn't change my lifestyle a bit. i think there is a lot of wealthy people out there that feel the same way. we are going to have to sacrifice. we're going to have to come together as a country and realize that all of us have to do our part. and the president talks about

shared sacrifice. but there is one party in the country that views this as some kind of unbelievable economic threat, as if you can't raise taxes on the job creators. really? i just think that is so wrong-headed, and it's not statistically proven. we've done it before. generations in the past have done it. we just have to have the will to do it. and the stewards here in washington who watch our money have to be willing to debate and not be stuck in ideological hedge row country where they can't move, and do it for the people. and there has to be some level of compromise in this country if we're going to get our finances in order. the brow beating has got to stop. >> a story in usa today, don't look now, but american manufacturing is rebounding. it says even though the u.s. is in a tepid recovery from what they're calling a deep recession, no one's bothered to tell that to american manufacturers because they are creating jobs. north carolina, let's go to

that. democratic caller. what is your name, caller? >> caller: wilbur smith. >> thanks for calling. you're on with ed schultz. >> caller: good morning. >> morning. >> caller: it's such a pleasure to speak with you. >> thank you. >> caller: you're the only one on msnbc that brings out the truth of the american people. we are really suffering, mr. schultz. i draw social security check. you know what they have done? they have taken half of my social security check. mitt romney, he's got all his money overseas. it's so disgusted. you take -- wife. she is talking about an at-home momma, that she raised five children. she got five nannies. she ain't raised a childful those nannies took care of her children. >> i had a little trouble understanding him. but i think he mentioned social security. >> he mentioned social security, that his payments have been cut. he is talking about mitt

romney's wealth and what he is doing wit. and it was a little hard to hear, but he was saying that mrs. romney had assistance and help raising her children. so even though she was a stay at home mom and raised her kids, she wasn't going through the hard times that he himself feels like he has experienced. >> i think it's wrong if we start attacking people's choices. this is america. it's a free society. there is people who have died for our freedom. we got to respect that. and if someone chooses to do something with their life, we should celebrate it instead of vilify it. i think stay-at-home moms are critically important to america. but i think the choice is the most important thing. >> one last tweet for you. jim asks about the occupy wall street. where is it going? can it make a difference? >> the occupy wall street movement changed the conversation in the country. they did the country a favor.

they brought to light a great deal of frustration. now whether that maintains its moment politically remains to be seen. the only benchmark that you're going to have is an election. you can show videotape of a protest all day long. you can interview people. but when it comes to making a change at the polls, are all of these people who are out in front of these buildings, are they going to actively participate in getting the vote out and going down the road of what they believe in and what they want to advocate for? protesting is a part of the process. but beyond protesting, just like we've seen in wisconsin, there has to be the groundwork of 30,000 volunteers to go out and get the signatures, to go out and set the table within the function of the system and have the election. and so, you know, they've done a good job, the wall street occupiers, of getting the attention of the country, changing the conversation, focusing the conversation on the frustration of the country.

which is also all very much part of the process. now whether they're going to be politically viable or not remains to be seen. they have an opportunity. it's coming up in november. >> ed schultz, host of "the ed show" weekdays at 8:00 p.m. on msnbc eastern time, and the ed schultz show syndicated nationally, you can catch that at noon eastern time throughout the country. thank you so much for coming in and talking with us. >> libby, it's been a pleasure. thank you. global markets are weighing the chances that greece will leave the eurozone. following the recent elections in that country. next on c-span3, the chief economist for citigroup talks about greece and the global economy. on friday and saturday, president obama welcomes world leaders from the largest economies to the g8 conference at camp david in maryland. and the next day, the u.s. hosts nato heads of state in chicago. we'll get previews of both those meetings later. ♪

>> this memorial day weekend on c-span we'll take you to colleges and universities around the country to hear commencement addresses from members of congress and the president's cabinet, state and local leaders, and business executives. and we also want to hear from you about your commencement experience. did you graduate from college this year or attend a ceremony for a friend or family member? or maybe something about a past commencement sticks with you. we want to hear from you. call us and tell us your story. 202-643-3011. and we may use your comments on the air. that's 202-643-3011. this month in greece, 70% of voters supported parties that rejected the terms of the latest international bailout loans. up next, the discussion on the global economy with citigroup economist willem buiter.

hosted this one-hour event. >> take your seats. i think we're going get started in just a minute here. thank you. my name is rana forhoohar. i'm the assistant manager in charge of business and economics for "time" magazine. i'm really pleased to be here today with dr. willem buiter, who we all know, the chief economist of citigroup. he eis one of the preeminent voices on the eurozone and on the crisis. i've been following his work closely as i'm sure you all have. this is part of the peter mccullough series on international economics. before we get started, i would like to remind you all to turn off your phones, not just to put them on vibrate, because they'll interfere with the sound system. the meeting is on the record. we do have press in attendance. just to note that the next meeting will be friday at lunch entitled prospects for diplomacy in iran. and we'll see after we hear from dr. buiter what will be more

difficult, solving the eurozone crisis or diplomacy i in iran. we'll start with opening comments by dr. buiter, and then he and i will talk for 20 minutes, and then you'll have a chance the last 30 to ask your own questions. dr. buiter, please set the stage for us. >> good morning. it's really a pleasure to be here. europe continues to be in a dreadful mess. it won't get any better soon. but we'll probably be spared the worst. everybody is focused on greek at the moment. it is an important issue. but i personally am much more concerned what is going on in spain and the lack of progress in italy. europe still struggles with a -- the need to address three, maybe now four crisis that are distinct but interrelated. first is a sovereign/solvency crisis.

a number of sovereigns will have to be restructured or rerestructured in the case of greece. expect portugal to follow some time into 2013. both will need new programs or extensions of their existing programs before long because the sums don't add up. ireland in my view either will need a lot of additional osi, official sector involvement, or they too will be pushing on the psi, the private sector involvement button. and that brings us to spain, where i'm of the opinion that the consolidated banking sector and sovereign probably cannot be kept whole, and that they have to make a choice between assuming there is no santa claus, that they'll make open-ended cross-border transfers. and surely that isn't one, not

even in the wildest dreams of the pro-growth party in europe. so they will either have to restructure spanish debt bank or spanish sovereign debt. the risk of an ireland experience where an otherwise solvent sovereign by imprudent guarantees for too big to save banking system got itself in a hole so deep it's unlikely to get out. just beware of that. so that's the restructuring end. then they have to ring fence the most likely solvent, but the risk of unsolvency through lack of market funding in the rest of the periphery, which ranges from the small cypress, which nobody ever mentions, but it's clearly in the firing line also.

as well as spain and italy, and beyond that, the soft-core, which now includes almost everything else, except possibly germany and finland and maybe slovakia. so that is really a need for a big bazooka. fortunately, we have it. we always knew that ecb had the resources to basically do anything that was required. after all, this is a euro crisis, not a foreign exchange reserve crisis for the euro area as a whole. and the capacity of the ecb to issue euro debt is fortunately from a technical perspective rather impressive. in fact, unlimited. now, imposing inflation constraint, rather less can be done. but a capacity of the euro system is also likely to be at least 3.5 trillion. so they have a bit to play with still. now the final third crisis that

you recognized that is in full swing at the moment is the euro area banking crisis. unlike the american banks and the british banks, euro did not recognize continental europe, the losses suffered by the banking system in the earlier crisis. there has been a massive cover-up, evergreening if you will, lender forebearance. and a little conspiracy of obfuscation. and one stress test at a time. the eba, fortunately, without national sunk reputation or capital in the national bank is forcing the banks to review where the holes are. and each time you look, they're bigger. so we're going to need massive recapitalization. the scale of what is required i think is much, much bigger than

even eba has so far allowed for. and of course it's getting bigger all the time because europe while technically not in recession in q-1, which is a bit of a surprise, because germany's performance was really quite strong, is nevertheless in deep recession in the weakest countries. and there the banks are shedding capital rather than accumulating it as a result of deterioration of regular loans to households, to nonfinancial corporates. finally we have the exit crisis. greece now looks to be on the way out. it's not impossible that it could stay in. after all, they can't legally technically be pushed out. the way they would leave is either in a haze of nationalistic populist rage following the next election, or a refusal of the troika to continue funding the sovereign because of noncompliance,

injecting the memorandum understanding, and not achieving a compromise open to both sides. and the other -- sorry, i seem to be losing my thread here. >> easy to do when you're talking about europe. >> okay. so greece will exit unless it finds this ability to compromise on -- on the memorandum of understanding. there is a widespread i think nonsense debate going on in europe at the moment about growth versus hysterically. in all countries except germany, the argument we want more growth is the same as the argument we want less austerity, except that it adds in we need more long

market funding. most europeans actually know that austerity hurts. there may be few teutonic knights that believe austerity is expansionary. i teach, i used to in my academic days. i enjoyed teaching it, but i didn't believe it. and it is clear from revealed evidence that the austerity that we're seeing imposed hurts. that's one. second, it is not actually self-defeating in the economic sense we don't have a -- curve. when we fiscally tighten, we don't get declining activity so strong that the deficit actually increases. i wish it were so because then we have the solution, reduce the deficit. we know how well that works. but there are few country in the world, and germany is the big one in europe where the

authorities have the choice, when to do austerity, how fast to do it, and yeah, really when and how. in most of your area, the choice is not there. it's a market that enforce the austerity. and a request for more growth, which means less austerity is additional funding. and additional funding may be forth coming on a very small scale, but for the time being, and for the foreseeable future, the efs and the efm are it. it's 700 billion. it's nice, but it's not enough. if the whole 34 billion u.s. like lagarde ripped up in commitments, actually materialized, the imf sits potentially on about $815 billion of loanable capacity. but of course not all can be

used in europe. historically they have used a 1-three ratio. which means effectively we have a trillion to play with in the troika. again, nice, and it will take care of spain and italy sovereigns for a year or so, but it doesn't take care of the banks, and it is simply not enough. this is still pocket money. the e ecb can pull out the big bazooka. they print the stuff. they have the massive capacity, but they rightly think that it's not their job to act in a fiscal capacity. they have been willing to do so only when nothing stood between us the disorderly collapse of a sovereign or a disorderly collapse of systemic reports of financial institution, or now it is exit. or indeed exit via contagion. let me focus on this last thing.