you to do. that is if you want any chance in making it in america. you have to get a college education at a great school like george washington. you come out of school and you have that coming out of your ears. then you cannot find a job in this economy on top of that. you are supposed to somehow still believe that you can achieve, that you can have, that the american dream is still for you. talk about this issue of student loans and how that is setting another generation of americans so far behind in pushing them so much the for it and -- deeper into poverty. >> here is what makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. student loan debts is the only debt that in 99.9999% of the

cases cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. the federal loan debt that can occur from the stafford loan, usually does not pay for the cost of a university education, so you end up getting private student loan debt from banks. banks are not regulated like the federal government, were the m.a.c. chairman -- with a maximum interest rate is 6.8%. on a plus loan, you are looking at 7.9%. bank loans have the ability to go to 15, 18, 19%, and the u.s. government bankruptcy laws protect those banks. so the banks can screw you with the interest rates that are

charging you, and you do not have any rights whatsoever to say i cannot afford this. then the system allows you to defer your student loans, up to do forbearance on your student loans. what does that mean? it simply means that you don't have to pay it right away, but the interest continues to accumulate. listen to me closely here. there are not a lot of safe places to make money today, and they know that. many of these banks and institutions by them at 0% and they are lending to you at 6% or 8%. when you don't pay it back, they are thrilled, because it starts to compound and compound, and $40,000 turns into $80,000 turns into $150,000. in you think you have been getting away with something

because you haven't been able to pay it, and then they contact you and you have got to pay back that $150,000. you cannot. what did they do? they will garnish your wages, they will garnish your social security check. so when you are taking out student loans -- parents out there, when you are cosigning a private student loan, you better be very, very careful, because some of the private student loans state that if the person you cosign for dies, they don't care. you are stuck paying the student loan for as long as it is going to take, even if the student is no longer here. all the rides are going to the institution. if you think expensive education

is going to get you a job when there are no jobs out there to be gotten. [applause] >> this is the best thing i have heard up here tonight. this is going to continue. even if we stop them on this scam, the beast will come up with the next scam. the monster has to be fed. until we change the system, and we are talking about capitalism. not the old kind of capitalism, work hard, do well, everybody benefits. we are talking about capitalism as defined in the 21st century. set it up so that just a few succeed, and everybody else suffers and service them. this ultimately has to change. the way we structure this economy, this has to change.

this has to be a democratic economy where you and i control it, not wall street you have done these symposiums for so many years. . won't have this hair if we don't thing that we did change the thing that is at the core of this evil -- >> until it changes, we have to be educated not to make the mistakes they want you to make. >> this is very important. that is why you have this the first panel appear. we also need to talk the larger thing that has to change, which is an economic system that is unjust, unfair, and not

democratic. until that changes, we are screwed. >> is a global affairs, not just a national affair. you cannot really look forward until you look back. what you look back at are the great, courageous, loving, sacrificial people who shake to, like my mother and father and your mother and father and grandparents. what the black tradition has taught you is that if you don't have a sense of history, if you don't put yourself in a narrative that is rooted in something deeper than just money and fame and quick success and instant gratification, then the very capitalism we are talking about has produced such shallow people that they are never going to

straighten up their backs and take a stand against anything because they are up for sale. >> i totally agree that history is very important. i am very proud of my history. native american history -- i don't understand how they are not crazy in terms of what happened to them. all i am trying to say is, we don't want to go back there. we want to learn from there, but we don't want to go back. we have to go forward. the world is very different than it used to be. it calls for a term elite -- totally different method, totally different tools. in this country, with the changing demographics, it changes everything. race cannot play quite the same role that it played before.

>> love, courage, integrity, willingness to serve and sacrifice, that is rostov, and we don't want to lose any of that. -- the at israw stuff. >> i am says the about the students, but i don't want to leave out the babies, these children -- i asked susie about the students. the data is abundantly clear account. simply put, the younger you are in america, the more likely you are to be in poverty. it is just that simple. the younger you are in america, the more likely you are to be in poverty. the indiana university white paper _ is that as well. --underscores that as well. what we say in this present moment in america about and to a nation that allows that

statistic to be the reality? >> is one of the major indictments, they are more likely to be in the worst social conditions. what kind of people are we, when we examine ourselves and acknowledge that reality? that is not just that, that is pathological. it really is. i am anti-in justice in america. that is not the same as anti- american. the question becomes, if we are really serious about being poverty abolitionists and calling for the eradication and abolition of poverty, we got to target the young people from birth to five years old. all the evidence talks about the shaping of their minds and

hearts and souls. this cannot just a matter of programs. it is a matter of civic society. what kind of discourse -- does this kind of discourse take place in churches and synagogues? no. there are other priorities at work. what is going on? the renaissance of compassion and the nonviolent, democratic revolution we are calling for against oligarchy is across the board in every sphere of our society. that is part of the consciousness raising that needs to take place. >> this has been interesting. what struck me, i want to go back earlier to susie's point, because this will be revolutionary. let's look at what is, working

within the system which is the capitalist system. maybe -- i don't think i am one of the only people who embraced their inner capitalist. we all participate in some way, shape, or form. the question is, what can we do in the interim before somebody abolishes it and comes up with something else. in the meantime, what are we going to do right now? i come from one of the poorest congressional districts in this country. people are not having this conversation. they are having conversations about what is really impacting them. that is what i am hoping we can actually get to the root of right now. how do we make poor people less poor? jesus said there'll always be the poor among us. that't think he ever said have to stay that way.

that is where we start thinking about within the confines of the system we are in right now, what can we do to actually help our leaders have vision? how do we be the leaders with vision ourselves and show that there is another way of doing things? that is what we really need to be talking about, in ways that are practical. with all the vision i have, i am practical. i want to make sure that people are doing accessible jobs that allow them to move up and out of poverty in ways that are real, meaningful, and have lasting impact or their families and communities. i struggleddon't -- with the idea of gentrification and displacement in a bunch of different ways. when people talk about it in so many ways, it is like, you are going to push the poor people out.

poor people don't like living in poor places. can we talk very seriously about that? [applause] when we think about what happened with integration, i don't think dr. king was thinking that when people have the ability to live wherever they want, they should not leave the other people behind. i don't believe that was on his mind, but that basically is what happened. why is that happening? what have we lost? what have we not done? what did you say, for 40 years we have not had black unemployment any better than it was? that is a scary, scary thought.

really? really? >> yes, really. >> why are we not thinking about different ways of saying -- we can come up with ways to create new opportunities in our inner cities, in their rural and poor areas, the kind of places that need the economic development to support or people and move them out of poverty, so we are not talking about them like a thing that is demonized and criminalize, but allowing them to actually move that experienced the american dream. [applause] >> in the tradition of the black church, i would say amen to everything you just said. i have heard seven or eight practical things, a very real things on this stage in this conversation tonight that can be done and ought to be done to

make the poor less pork. -- make the poor less poor. dr. west a moment ago used the term poverty abolitionist. juxtaposed those of us on the stage who are, but there are also poverty deniers in this country. there are poverty deniers and poverty apologists. i wonder what we say to them tonight. with all the data that is out there, how can people still deny that poverty is real and is as real as it is, and yet you see them on television and in the media all the time, as if this

is some sort of fantasy. >> let me say something about that. you cannot do anything about the people that are so clueless. if they are denying this fact, we are in the country. that poll that said that 21% of republicans believe that "barack obama maybe the antichrist." 21% of them actually believe that. there is nothing you can do about that. you just have to say we are a big country. there are 30 million people that are just don't cold crazy. but there are 270 million that are not. [laughter] you just made such an excellent point. while some of us are trying to abolish capitalism, or if it is a more comfortable work for you,

agreed -- that is just another word for it. the practical things right now, if they do have cable and are able to watch this. [applause] if not, it is on pbs next monday, tuesday, and wednesday. [applause] >> you ask about all these party programs and people complain about poverty. here is a poverty program that everyone should get behind, jobs. isn't that really at the core of what everybody has been saying? if you have a job and you are paid a decent wage, a livable wage, isn't that really the eradication of this poverty, if you are paid a wage so that you are not in poverty? how do we create those jobs?

corporate america, 4500, are sitting on $2 trillion cash in their bank accounts. in the past, that has never happened. " corporations do when they make money is they then spend that money to create more jobs. factory andanother we can make more of that, and employ more people. that is how we used to work, kind of. now what they are doing is, they are making record profits and putting money in their bank account, and doing it in part because it is their rainy day fund. they know the other shoe has not dropped ticket they are still doing credit defaults swaps and derivatives and all this crazy stuff on wall street. they know another crash could happen. any of a number of things could

happen. they want to make sure they are protected. if we force them, if congress could force them to say, you have to release that money, you cannot afford it money, if i live in a town in northern michigan where it is very cold in the winter and there is no natural gas, you use heating oil to heat your home. if the heating oil company down the road was hoarding all the oil and not selling it to people so they could heat their homes in the winter, what would those people do? rise up. if that heating oil company doesn't want to sell your their oil, they don't have to. well, that has to change. that $2 trillion has been taken out of circulation. it has to be put back into

circulation. we need a roosevelt-style jobs program right now. we need real jobs with real wages. we need to start the eradication of poverty. >> let me challenge that. i don't know in this era, i don't know a single corporate co who gets rewarded for hiring anybody that he or she does not have to have. take that argument to its logical extension. one could argue that this economy is never going to come back, because as long as ceo's know that they can do the same with less and they get rewarded for squeezing more out of the shareholder, nobody gets rewarded for hiring more people. you don't get rewarded for putting more people back to

work. >> the whole discussion about a jobs creation and who is going to create jobs is so silly. all the rewards of our form of capitalism have been for the people at the top who can reduce the number of employees they have. that is all they know how to do. romney is not an exception. the idea is to get lean and mean. that is all they know how to do. really thatk it is we want to destroy capitalism. it is destroying itself. this cannot work. you cannot have an economic system where your and your people can participate as either workers or consumers. clay don't earn enough or they don't have jobs. that is one of the reasons we had the crash of 2007-2008. there was so much poverty that was behind the mortgage crisis.

you cannot run things like this. you cannot have an economy just based on the 1% plus their -- i don't know how it would work. it is not a matter of if we like capitalism or not. fiscal matter of how we survived when it isn't working any more -- it is a matter of how we survive when it isn't working any more. >> you can either have all the wealth concentrated with a small number of people, or you can have democracy, but you cannot have both. >> part of what we are talking about is that we move from a state of monopoly and industrial capitalism to monopoly finance capitalism. 40 years ago, the banks only had 9% or 10% of the corporate profits in the whole economy.

today they have 43% of the corporate profit. when you have banks that are not primarily interested in lending any more, but rather trading on casino like operations in which they make big money but they don't produce any products, they are making billions of dollars. general motors was making big money in producing products and providing jobs. now they are just a collective. that is what finance capitalism is globally. we have to be honest about that and then say we have to be practical in terms of how we preserve our dignity and integrity. you have to tell people the painful truth of the kind of system we are living in. unfortunately, it is very rare that they even get a chance to hear that kind of truth about capitalism. people are debating about bain. that is the tip of the icebergs.

bain is not some isolated unit time to private equity. this has been happening across the board. in that sense, it does look rather bleak at times, but this is another reason why the black traditions are important. if you have been under slavery for thousands of years, it looks kind of bleak. if you have been jim crow for over a hundred years and the land of liberty, it looks bleak. here comes the people telling you how to blow the struggle for justice with your head high in the middle of darkness. >> this is what i want to say. we have been sitting here now for a few hours, talking about poverty and the system and

getting out the truth about it. but i am also looking at 1500 people in this room, and i have to ask you, each one of you individually, what are you doing to stay out of poverty? how knowledgeable are you about the money that you are making? do you have the documents in place today to protect your tomorrow so that if something were to happen to you, the little amount of money may have does not go to some lawyer to probate what you have. what steps are you taking to keep yourself out of poverty? the more people that go into poverty, the harder it is going to be for everybody to get out. have y been on an airplane and you hear them say when the oxygen mask falls, put it on your face first before your child? that is because if you cannot take care of yourself, you cannot take care of your children.

tavis, you asked me about student loans. he asked everyone about children. we are passing a silent message of debt down to our children. we don't talk about money. i am talking about your family money. what you do that, where you put it, how you get more out of what you already have. if you don't learn about money, if you don't learn about -- i am just talking about personal finance now. then you are setting yourself up to be a victim to a system that wants you to fail. so i hope all of you leave tonight not only thinking about what we do for the entire system and how we change the world, but i hope you go home and have a good sit-down with yourself and say, what am i doing in my life right here and right now to stay out of poverty?

that you can still do, so you better start doing it now, people. i could be looking at 1500 people in poverty sooner than later if you don't get powerful over the money that you do have. how you think and feel about it and what you do. i am asking you to turn toward yourself to solve that problem in your own family, because nobody else is going to solve it for you. [applause] >> we would like all of you to take your credit cards out now. ushers are bringing scissors down the aisle. [laughter] >> i totally agree with everything you said. it is just not sufficient. i don't think we are disagreeing. i want to go back to what my good friend roger said about jobs.

you are absolutely right, in the short term, the think we need to do is get as many people to work as possible, but they have to be good jobs. that have to play -- have to pay well and have benefits and mobility. if we do that, we still have not done a damn thing, frankly, because the system is still the same. we are staying in a nice hotel, and i talked yesterday to the person who was cleaning my room. i could tell she was in poverty. when barr wrote her book -- win barber wrote barbara 10 years ago, our unemployment rate was pretty good. the topic was not jobs. if she found a bunch of

different occupations and different people who clearly were in poverty. so merely getting down our unemployment rate to 5%, that is totally insufficient. again, we have to figure out how to change the system. i am assuming we'll have time to talk about what we would do that is very different to change the system. >> i had a question for you and for dr. west. having just finished the tour, what was your sense of what you are seeing, feeling, hearing from americans around how frustrated are they a round of the issues we are talking about? how focused are they on really creating a movement to change the system? what is the outcome of the tour? >> one was that the resilience

among poor brothers and sisters of all colors was profoundly inspiring. we went in knowing they weren't sophisticated, so, inadequate, magnificent, and fall like anybody else, but their resiliency came through strong. mainly in local forms, in very practical forms of expression. in madison, wisconsin, people wake up in different ways, different times, and so on. i came away tremendously fired up, not just because of the occupy movement. this was three months before --

about a month and a half before. i also get a sense that poor people know that the system is so deeply --, and it will take a fundamental system change, and how that will come about, nobody really knows. >> how do we mobilize those people to vote? how do we get them motivated to see the other side and again in practice the want right they have, around voting? >> i guess what michael said earlier a, it comes down to choices. a lot of people don't see the kind of choice they really want to make to help lift them up out of poverty. that is one reason why this conversation is so important, to put poverty front and center in this political season. >> the 1%, of want them to vote

and have a political party that represents their interests. they are americans. but the fact is, we have two parties -- the 1% gets to parties. the 99% have no parties. the 1% have the two--- have the two parties. the 1% should have their own party, and the 99% should have two or three or four parties that represent the broad spectrum of political thought within the 99%. >> stop yelling and being rude. >> i want to go back to something that roger said. i don't think anyone answered it or maybe heard what he said. when he said i don't want to go

back to the good old days, because the good old days for african-americans, latinos, or native americans, there are no good old days. when so much of the discussion talks about getting at home in the suburbs and the way used to be, and my dad was a factory worker at gm -- that is a bad example because the uaw is one of the few unions that integrated back in the 1940's and insisted that blacks and whites did the same jobs. generally, my question to and to anyone of pure who is african-american is, if we are able to succeed and find that these fixes in the present and

future, the system itself, do you worry that that new system, which is going to put people back to work and create a middle-class again, is that you are going to find yourselves still out there in that group that is not allowed in to the new party, to the new system? what is your fear of that taking place? >> it depends on the time you are talking about. in the short term, probably in my lifetime, i don't think it is going to get a lot better. in a longer life time, i think it is. the way i tend to approach our work is to look to what can we do today to have a good society for the kids today when they are grown? i would start with young kids and ask ourselves the question,

what do we want this country to look like in 20 or 30 years? i start at birth and then move up. . probably won't be around one of the things that is optimistic -- i am optimistic about the 99. things have gotten so bad for so many more people, it is not blacks and latinos crying in the wind. i think other people are beginning to understand. it is not going to turn around quickly. i think tavis was saying people are thinking about going back to the old labor market. our economy has changed. the longer people are hard work, the more it is changing. we are going to have to come up with a different work force system. >> i think it will be better for

the next generation. the young people sitting here tonight. >> we have more mixed race people, and a lot of them are influential. they are married and to families that have more power and money. they are not as racist. >> the only white age group that president obama one was a 18-29 year-old. he lost every other white age group. the young people are going to fix this. our kids are not bigots. they are not homophobes'. they don't look at this the

weather grandparents and great grandparents -- that don't look at it the way the grandparents and great grandparents did. >> i want to ask a question about labor. a want to ask about how the attack on collective bargaining and unions and what some see as a diminishing of unions and labor in this country does for poverty in the long term, beyond today. since i happen to be an african- american -- >> it happen to be that god made you a black man. >> and i am glad he did. [laughter] shout hallelujah. [laughter] >> it is wonderful thing.

did you sing that song in church ♪ i am glad, glad, glad, that me. made nik i am glad roger made that point about optimism and hope. optimism suggested that there is a particular set of facts, circumstances, or conditions, something you can see, feel, and touch, they give you reason to believe that things are going to get better. so you say i am optimistic. that has never been the case for negro in america. hope, on the other hand, sestet craig is the substance of things hoped for -- said that faith is

the substance of things hoped for. i cannot look at the condition and the state of black people ellay catching the most h in this economy. i cannot find any reason to be optimistic. what i can find reason to be is hopeful. when hope got to us, it was already stillborn, and yet we are the most hopeful people in this country. optimism and hope are two very different things. i don't have reason to be optimistic, but i am hopeful. since you ask, i am going to be frank. it troubles me -- it almost the presses me at times when some

folks don't understand the critique of obama from those of us who happen to be free, black men who want a more progressive view of this country. the reason i am on this is because i think in many ways, this is the last, best chance that my people have, and if the numbers continue to petworth and we keep thinking in falling hole, there isis whol a chance we may never come out of this. and i love black folks too much to sit and watch this happen to them. [applause] >> the history plays an important role. under slaver, it was a crime for black people to love you love your child, but you either go crazy or get some spiritual

fortitude. it was also a crime to hope. we could not worship god without what supervision so you would steal away to the creek. that was a crime. in the land of religious liberty, no matter how dark it is, even in the present, it is hard to conceive of what my great great grandmother and great great grandfather had to wrestle with in the abyss of american slavery. i cannot conceive of it even being worse, as bad as it is, but with this proviso. i have learned a lot from young people. all will say this about young falcon a critical way. -- about your own fault in a

critical way. i don't know of a wave of young people who are commensurate to the grandmothers and grandfathers and those ancestors that shaped me in terms of who i am. i just don't. the reason is because young people have been so penetrated with that capitalist culture of instant gratification, overnight success. in that sense, there is a shift from the john coltrane and sarah vaughn and curtis mayfield and aretha franklin into the bubble gum music that is dominant. that is a shift. when we talk about the young people who are going to make this fundamental social change, you are going to get bought out. you are going to sellout quick. you will not be a long-distance runner. you'll be so obsessed with

instant success and superficial status that you will make your grandmother week from the grave. she will want you to have earned great as, not quick success. she doesn't care about what your position is or how big your crib is. this.e still agreeing on desk >> i worry that whatever fixes we come up wit, that is part of it will not get fixed, because as you said, there is nothing to prove or justify any optimism that black america is not going to be left behind again.

>> there is symbolism, and that is what obama represents. as yet, there has not been a substance that can fuel that hope. a lot of symbolism, and i celebrate symbols. barbara, i wanted to ask you about labor. there are many of us who are concerned about the attack on labour, on collective bargaining. there are those who think the labor movement is dead. your assessment of what ever the condition of labour is and how it parallels where this poverty conversation in america is or is not going to go. >> it was the unions that brought my family up. the butte miners union. they were not paid well. they had union and they began to

do better. finally getting into home ownership and things like that. that is the only thing i know about the upward mobility. it is true. i don't even pay any attention to my personal finances. that is another area. [laughter] but the one thing i did grow up with was the idea that people could get ahead by sticking together. in fact, and my family was very prejudiced in a way, i guess. they said there are two things you could never do in your life. one is vote republican, and the other is cross a union picket line. you can do either of those things are you go straight to hell.

michael mentioned there is a class war. one of the first targets was unions, because they did represent so-called little people or working people and everything. and the have been terribly weak and -- they have been terribly weakened. maybe they have been institutionally weakened, but we still have to take the lesson from them that people standing together in solidarity can take on that 1%. can make changes. [applause] >> i am watching the clock and we have about 15 minutes left of the conversation. let me start by saying there have been all kinds of suggestions of what needs to be done right now. we have had some short-term suggestions, short-term solutions, that is.

we have had some long term solutions. we have in title this conversation "reawaken in america from poverty to prosperity." since you put this question now about if we don't replace, have certainly fix a broken system. your thoughts about how we do that or what? >> the media is jobs in the public sector, jobs in the private sector, supporting business, especially small and micro businesses. then we have to start working on our systems that create poverty and keep people in poverty like our educational system, the criminal justice system. but the bigger idea is trying to

figure out how to spread the wealth of this country throughout all of its people. one of the ways i think he can do that is something like a well account where things that we all own, such as oil, and i will use alaska as an example. they get money it serves people that has lived there for a year. when sarah palin was governor, it was more than $3,000 a person. the idea there is that they all -- they all on the oil, so they all get it. there are natural resources like that, but there are other things like patents. if you want to invent something and put on the market, that is fine, but if you want the government to protect your for 50 years passed your death, then

you have to pay for that. the way i would have it paid 4 is essentially give an ownership interest in every patent to people in this country, and i would distribute the money to everybody, no means test, no nothing. if we did that, so that everybody would get another $10,000 or $50,000 a year automatically, we could get rid of food stamps and other government programs that are a safety net, because we would get rid of the need for part of the safety net. i think that would be a fundamental change. i also think it is possible, and i think we could still call it capitalism and democracy. but we would be fundamentally changing the way the resources get distributed to everybody. >> i like the way you think. [applause]

>> if you were going to be imagined america, you would read imagine it in what way? >> while we are working on the longer-term, and as we think about poverty and all the things that affect and are part of poverty, hunger is the one issue that we can solve in this country. there is enough food produced in america not only to feed every person in this country, but most of the developed world. what i would do is find a way to work on the food system so that we can get what farmers grow to the plates of people that need food. it is criminal that we live in this country and that there are 17 million kids that don't eat and cannot learn and cannot be educated. it is actually giving dollars

back to people to try to get on their feet. if you don't have to worry about groceries, you can get back on your feet. a perfect world to me, and this is a big stretch because these programs are under fire on either side of the aisle, a big stretch -- would be to seek children and families have enough food to eat in the united states of america. [applause] >> suze orman. >> there are so many things, but i concentrate on personal finance. my job is rebuilding america, one wallet at a time [applause] . i really believe in my heart that if you all want to stay out of poverty, you have to really get involved with the money that

you have today. you have got to learn how to make more out of less. you have to really turn toward your money than away from. so many of you will get jobs, you have jobs, and you take this hard-earned money and you turn it over to wall street. you turn it over to the banks. you turn it over to the people that are helping keep you in this situation of not getting ahead. so you need to know what to do with money, who to give it to, how to invest it in your retirement plan, and how to be able to take care of yourself in the future. my biggest fear is that they are just going to keep pushing all of this down the road. you are not going to have medicare, social security the way you think is going to be. you are not going to have pensions from the companies you are working with.

they will be taking the 401k they have and you will have to work until you are 75 or 80, just to be able to possibly retire. i am asking you, and the america i see is one where people really deal with their own money. they are powerful over their own money. then when you are powerful over yourself, you can help others around you so that you can pick everybody uppe. the only other thing i would love to see happen is because until the housing market comes back, it is going to be very difficult for america to come back. the housing market is not going to come back until the job market comes back. everything is contingent on one another. however, i do not understand why all the people who hold the mortgages, what we just don't

reduced every single mortgage out there on every single home in america to the fair market value of that home today, so the people that have homes and want to stay in their homes, they cannot help but they are under water. it is no fault of your own. why can they not take a $750,000 home in tampa and make it a $100,000 mortgage because that is what it can be sold for today. i don't understand why they are willing to not do that. that is my vision. >> let me say right quick, suze was gracious enough tonight not to raise this issue because she did not want to come across as proselytizing, and i appreciate that. the announcement she made today in washington at the national press club is called the approved card.

just go online, you can find it under her name. it is being talked about everywhere. the story broke today. go online and read more about the proof card and what -- the approved card. >> and don't believe the naysayers and what they say i am doing, because that is not what i am doing. >> i have five minutes left and c-span is going to turn the cameras off. >> i want to read imagine america in a way that allows every single person in it to see their own value, to see their dignity, and understand that there are ways that we can create economic opportunities to move people up and out of poverty. in particular, using the tools that we already have. real estate development, idea

create communities that meet the needs of everybody. opportunities to not degrade our a -- environment. we have those tools out there. we could be growing food in our cities in using technology in a way that helps redefine what are regional food system actually looks like. we can do these things right here and right now. i am also very interested in the idea that we know our climate is changing. doesn't make any difference whether man did it or not. people know there are problems out there. we have to address the fact that we do have a class of people that are under educated and have been left behind, and we have to create jobs for those people. we absolutely can do it.

the best social service dollar spent is actually a job. >> we have been talking about eliminating poverty. my final thought is, a lot of us in this room at one point have been poor, war in the future are going to be poor. sari, that is just how is. my final thought is, the poor and proud -- be poor and proud. we represent something. we have prided ourselves that has nothing to do with our network or credit score. >> make poverty a priority in

the national house and in the world house, so that everyone's humanity is accepted, abilities are accepted in such a way you can see theirself development and self realization, their voices are heard at the highest level. righteous indignation, anger channeled through love and justice. there will never be changed if you don't get mad with love and courage and be willing to live and die for something bigger than yourself. >> thank you, cornel west. final word, michael moore. >> tax the rich and end the war. take the money out of politics. corporations are not people.

let me say this to the 1% who might be watching. how many gated communities can you build? you have made 150 million americans poor or nearly four. i am a nonviolent passive this person. you have the communities across this country who are full of love and wanting to work together to make this a better country. how much more are you going to make them suffer, because some day they are not going to take it anymore. q. are going to wish you had dealt with that now could find the courage to deal with it now with peace and nonviolence. that is what we prefer. that is what we all prefer. [applause] >> let me ask you, in the 30

seconds i have left, i want to thank george washington university for having us. number two, let me ask you to thank c-span for carrying this conversation live around the world. thank you, c-span. no.and stand on your feet and tk this entire panel for being here tonight. c-span, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

>> here is a look at our schedule tonight on c-span. next, a discussion on the state of business from the u.s. chamber of commerce. after that, we will hear from the head of the president's economic advisers. it then, newt gingrich in south carolina. then, an interview with george mitchell. republican presidential candidate mitt romney will meet with veterans' tomorrow in south carolina. he will be joined by former republican presidential nominee john mccain in the south carolina governor. you can watch live coverage at just after 5:00 eastern. at 6:20 eastern, on the other side of the state, local republicans will hold a forum.

so far, newt gingrich and rick santorum has said it will be attending. we will have live coverage. -- have said they will be attending. we will have live coverage. >> in this episode, we will look at a surprising comments on climate change and the scientists behind the research. >> there are scientists who have manipulated data. >> irate different comments from politicians on a one to four scale. if you say something completely of riches, you of going to get four pinocchio's -- you are going to get four pinocchios. >> the evaluates and rates the truthfulness of politicians and others. >> if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even

when it has been pointed at it is not true, they know it is not true. they are going to say it anyway. >> glenn kessler, sunday night at 8:00. >> now the u.s. chamber of commerce president talks about the challenges facing the u.s.. this is about 30 minutes.

>> good morning. welcome to the u.s. chamber of commerce. i am margaret spellings. this is an exciting time for us. 2012 marks the chamber's 100th anniversary. in a few minutes the chamber's president tom donahue will deliver his annual address. before he does, i will say a few words about tom. 2011 was a challenging year for america. through it all, tom did what he does best. he turned challenges and opportunities and led the chamber through a string of victories.

tom has the energy and vision to act. that is what makes him fun to work for. he does not keep the business community in the national debate. he helped frame it. he helped position the chamber to be an advocate for business in the most critical issues confronting america. that is why so many of us look forward to his address. i think we are going to get a glimpse of what this year will bring politically and economically and what it means for the american business community. most importantly, we will hear from tom on how the chamber is going to continue to advance free enterprise and defend and protect business over the coming year. as we face new challenges in 2012, i am confident he will lead the chamber to even greater success. please join me in welcoming u.s. chamber president and ceo tom donahue.

[applause] >> thank you very much, margaret, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i would say parenthetically, if half of what margaret said was true, it would be true of because of the extraordinary people that we have working at the chamber and the people that we have been able to attract to come here at this very challenging time for our country. let me begin by saying good morning and by expressing my appreciation to margaret and the national chamber foundation for organizing this event and each of you for being here today. it is something of a tradition that the chamber gathers in the new year and assesses the state

of american business, size up our economy, and lay out our priorities for things that we believe are really important for our country. this year is particularly special for us. we are observing the chamber's 100th anniversary, 100 years of representing the business community and standing up for american free enterprise. as we begin 2012, we can say that the state of american business is improving, but it is doing so weakly, slowly, and insufficiently to put our nation back to work. we were all pleased to see the positive jobs report last week. let's not forget unemployment was 5% in december of 2007 as

the recession began, and we are still down 6 million jobs since the recession ended. there are more than 23 million americans who are either unemployed, working part-time, or who have given up looking for a job. our nation's highest priority then must be to put these americans back to work. to achieve this goal, our economy has to grow much faster than it is today. unfortunately, we think the economy will actually slow down in the early months of 2012. we expect growth to average 2.5% or lower in the first half, and then hopefully, depending on the actions of government, to work its way up to about 3% at the end of this year.

there are long lists of what the economists like to call downside and upside risks. these factors could cause the economy to perform either more poorly, or much better than any of us might forecast. our goal is to see the nation take advantage of our many opportunities on the upside, while doing everything possible to address the risks on the downside. we are deeply concerned that our largest export market and a commercial partner that we most value, the european union, faces an unresolved financial crisis and a looming recession. there will be leadership transitions and elections in taiwan, china, north korea, and

in case you have not noticed, there is an election here in united states. we are seeing continued turmoil and violence in the middle east and saber-rattling from iran. what happens to our economy if we have to pay $100 or more over the long term for crude oil? here at home, government policies and conflicts among our political leaders have added to these uncertainties, undermining business and consumer confidence and slowing the economy down. the federal government is

expanding its powers, its costs, and its debt at a record pace. we have made virtually no progress in reforming entitlement programs which could eat the federal budget and our economy alive. and in a new survey of small businesses, more than 80% of them are very concerned about the prospect of new regulations, new mandates and higher taxes, and these concerns could put the brakes on their investment and their hiring. for all of these reasons, the chamber is putting forward an american jobs and growth agenda, with specific ideas to put people back to work -- without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. we are calling on leaders in washington to work with businesses and with each other

to build a stronger american economy. 2012 must not be wasted simply because it is an election year. there is no justifiable reason that it should be. the house of representatives, for example, have already passed 30 bills that its leaders say could accelerate growth and create jobs. so far, these bills have gone nowhere in the senate. surely, some of these must have good ideas that will attract the attention of the majority in the senate. meanwhile, an administration spokesman said recently there is just one item on the president's must-pass legislation program for this year -- one item for the whole year -- a further extension of the social security payroll tax holiday.

with all the challenges facing our economy and our country, it is inconceivable to me that the president would agree with that, and i trust that he does not. today i would like to briefly outline a few of the highlights of the chamber's jobs and growth agenda. let's start with a big one -- energy. our nation is on the cusp of an energy boom that is already creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, revitalizing entire communities, and reintegrating american manufacturing. and conventional oil and natural gas development is on the pace to create more than 300,000 jobs in the next few years in ohio, new york, pennsylvania, and west virginia alone, and there are a lot of other states involved in this

business. take a look at what is happening in north dakota. the state is booming. unemployment is 3.4%. oil production has just surpassed that of ecuador, one of the members of the ocd. energy is a game changer. it is the next big thing. with the right policies, the oil and natural gas industry could create more than 1 million jobs in the next few years.

not only can we create jobs, but we can cut our dependence on overseas imports while adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the government coffers at a time when they needed to. recent discoveries have confirmed that this nation is truly blessed with energy resources. numbers can be boring, but be patient with me for a minute. we have $1.40 trillion barrels of oil, enough to last for the next 200 years. that is what we know we have. we have 2.7 quadrillion feet of natural gas, enough to last 120 years. we have 486 billion tons of coal, enough to last over the next 450 years, and we need to use more of this strategic resource cleanly and wisely here at home while also selling at around the world. to tap our energy resources, we have got to speed up permitting and eliminate many of the restrictions that have been put on key areas and put these resources off-limits, some for environmental reserves, and others for purely political expediency.

instead of hand-picking a few technologies, we must harness all our resources -- traditional and alternative -- while also expanding nuclear power and driving greater efficiencies. this is the most important environmental advantage we have. our biggest most reliable energy supplier is canada. the proposed keystone pipeline would bring canadian oil sands down to our refineries and many destinations along the way. the project has passed every environmental test. there is no legitimate reason to subject it to further delay. labor unions and the business community alike are urging president obama to act in the

best interests of our national security and our workers and to approve the pipeline now. we can put 20,000 people to work the day it is approved and 250,000 over the course of the years that it will be built. expanding our energy infrastructure is just one part of a broader effort to modernize this nation's entire physical platform. congress -- this is very complicated -- has until january 31 to do the faa reauthorization. this will ease delays, create jobs, and save lives. lawmakers need to make investments to improve our transit system. the safety law that covers that expires on march 31. if congress does not act then,

the highway trust fund would cut a minimum of 35% out of what we now spend -- if we have the absence of a reauthorization -- and put people out of work. every piece of legislation should include reforms -- but infrastructure legislation should include public-private partnerships, and the use of private capital. by knocking down the barriers, we can on lock up to $250 billion in private capital to infrastructure alone. leverage this with investments, and you can create 1.9 million jobs over the next 10 years. add up all these jobs and you begin to put a lot of people

back to work. let me go to our next subject, trade and global commerce. 95% of the people we want to sell something to live outside the united states of america. let's get out there and convince more of these customers and consumers to buy american. the president and congress acted not a moment too soon when they finally passed the trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama. americans who were already starting to lose jobs -- that is what drove us to conclude those agreements. we could lose sales and jobs in other markets as well unless we act quickly to advance a bold trade agenda.

a great way to start is by completing a trans-pacific partnership agreement in the booming pacific basin. let's get a high-quality agreement done this year. the chamber has also proposed a new trans-atlantic economic and trade pact with the european union. this would eliminate tariffs on goods that we trade with one another. we're gaining a lot of support for it. we applaud also the membership of russia in the wto. congress should grant permanent normal trade relations status to this agreement so that the u.s. business community can participate in these benefits, because without it, we cannot, and we want to put russia in a rules-based system. it is time to get moving on

additional trade agreements. there is interest in egypt, brazil, and indonesia, just a few of the countries that should be on our list for consideration. to do this, the tpp that congress must renew its trade promotion. any president of any party should have it. the executive branch must negotiate agreements that will not be picked apart by the congress, but subject to an up or down vote. we also need to complete the task of modernizing the nation's export control rules. there are still rules from 30 years ago, and we need to move it because it is costing us billions and billions of dollars of sales abroad, and we must continue to support the

import bank and the overseas private investment corporations. these organizations, which some people criticize, have helped support our export of goods all over the country, and the government makes money on the deal. our country should make a major effort while we are doing this to attract more global investors. foreign investment supports millions of jobs in the united states, but indirect and direct. we need to negotiate more bilateral investment treaties to ensure that american investors are treated fairly overseas, and india and china should be on the list for the dish eating those trees. we ranked 44th in the world in the number of such treaties, and that is a fundamental competitive disadvantage of the

united states and our workers. we must not overlook the extraordinary benefits of expanding tourism and business travel to the united states. we need to broaden the visa waiver programs to limit wait times at customs to reduce the hassle without jeopardize the security. by simply restoring our share of the troubled market to the 2001 levels, we could realize a $860 billion in new economic stimulus and create 1.3 million new jobs at no cost to the american taxpayers. let me move to a very sensitive subject. to grow our economy and create jobs, we need to have significant regulatory and legal reform.

there are more regulations in pipeline to date than currently exist. the regulatory avalanche confronting our job creators is unprecedented. the labor department has 100 rule-makings in the pipeline. dodd-frank requires 437 rules and 59 studies. the health care law establishes 159 new bureaucratic agencies, panels, commissions, and regulatory bodies. the epa has some 200 regulations in the works, and the business community must contend with the national labor relations board that is clearly tilted towards unions. this adds up to a big drag on our economy, and i did not mention many of the other regulatory agencies.

when the need is there and the regulatory remedy makes sense, the chamber will support it. but when we see regulatory activism that is based on bad data, we will oppose it. we will go to congress, we will go to the courts, we will go to the court of public opinion to explain how a regulatory system run amok is needlessly driving american jobs out of the country or out of existence. let me be clear, the chamber support necessary, sensible, and forward-looking regulations. for example, our capital markets advance positive ideas to reform the sec and is working closely to close the regulatory gaps and minimize systematic

risk in our financial markets. dozens of the most critical dodd-frank rules are likely to be finalized this year. on derivatives regulation, the bulk of the rules, the potential money market reforms, and other important matters, we will help ensure that the regulators that the rules were right. we will continue to push for accountability and transparency at the consumer financial protection bureau. we were deeply disappointed to see the president installed the director without the advice and consent of the senate and without the oversight of the conference. we're not opposed to the director. we wanted to change the process so that one person did not control this whole system. the chamber is also working to modernize and overhaul the regulatory system, including

legislation to reform the permitting process and to update the administration procedure act for the first time since the truman administration. our institute for legal reform will continue to fight the expansion of excessive litigation that is sucking the vitality out of american companies and with it tens and tens of thousands of jobs. we are going to build on our successful work in the states and seek passage of additional state legal reforms. we will be engaged in a major effort this year to educate voters as they choose state supreme court justices and state supreme court's general. we also aim to stop the rise up third-party litigation. this one gets me. that is with the outside investor funds a lawsuit in

exchange for a share of what the lawsuit will bring in for the court. this encourages the filing of frivolous claims and by its testing claims in court. it gives incentives to prolong claims to get a settlement and raises serious ethical questions in my opinion. who does the lawyer really represent? his client or his investor? in our business, we hear dom ideas every day of the week, but this one takes the cake. my next topic is a critical one -- how to maintain and advance america's leadership as the most innovative economy in the world. we are still number one, but we are in danger of losing our edge. we can maintain our leadership by better protecting our leadership and intellectual property. everyone is committed to that.

congress took the first step last year by passing long overdue patent reform legislation. we are asking lawmakers to perform -- to cast ballots legislation to crack down on foreigners websites whose only purpose is to trick consumers, still american jobs, and pollute the vibrant internet system in this country. by the way, we understand people are very unhappy about some of that, but we are going to get it right. we are working with people on both sides of that issue, and we will get it right. leadership, as in innovation, also requires that we reform our visa policies to allow the world's best minds and most creative entrepreneurs to say in our country after we educate them. where?

in our top universities. they are going to contribute and succeed elsewhere, so let's keep them here. ideas got to be in the united states. beazer reform is just the first step towards the long overdue priority of immigration reform. always's prosperity has depended on hard work, sacrifice, drive, and the dreams of immigrants. our future will depend on them even more. leadership and innovation also demand substantial improvements to our k-12 school system. a major overhaul of job- training programs, and close cooperation with our universities to make sure that our work force is competitive and ready for the jobs of the future. finally, innovation demands and depends on a rational,

efficient, and globally competitive tax system. if we want to keep industries here and attract new investors to our shores, we cannot continue to maintain one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. we need to lower the rate as part of a comprehensive overhaul and reform that broadens the tax base, reduces the costs and burdens of compliance, and makes us globally competitive. we must also, ladies and gentlemen, recognize that the current individual tax rates as well as taxes on dividends, capital gains, and the states, are all scheduled to go up in smoke by the end of the year. if this happens, the idea of getting economic growth where we would hope it gets by the end of the year is just not going to happen. it would have a devastating

effect on businesses and on consumers and on our economic growth, so i think here is an issue we have got to take to the congress this year. there is one more priority that i would like to raise. the region need -- and it urgently needs our attention. we must rein in government spending and bring deficits and debt under control in an orderly process, and we cannot do that without a serious entitlement reform. our states are doing it. the country has to do it. despite some progress in controlling the growth of new spending, we still will rack up another annual deficit in excess of $1 trillion. our total national debt has just surpassed 100% of the nation's gdp. that equates to $47,000 for

every man, woman, and child in this country. medicare, medicaid, social security are the principal drivers of this runaway spending. it is not malicious. it just happens. they already consume over 55% of all federal outlays, and without reform, they will soon consume the total budget of the united states of america. all of us need to face the fundamental reality that the only way to continue these programs and provide them for the people that expect them and need them is to make constructive changes and to do it now. ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by underscoring that america's most pressing economic challenge is the lack of sufficient growth to create

jobs, to expand in comes, to reduce government deficits, and to fund essential programs. the good news is that our country is superbly positioned for a new era of growth. we still have a lot of strengths, you know. there's no reason to wring our hands or cry in hours of -- cry in our soup. even with millions of baby boomers set to retire, our country has positive, youthful demographics, and this will be a critical competitive advantage in the years ahead. we are home to the most sophisticated global companies and to over 25 million small businesses and entrepreneurs. america leads the world in manufacturing and services and high technology and in higher education. we have unbelievable reserves

of energy and other natural resources and one of the world's greatest breadbaskets. the business community is excited about building on these strengths, and growing our economy, and growing our companies. we are ready to invest, eager to compete, and we want to hire. we really want to put people back to work. in many instances, despite all the uncertainties and the impediments and risks, our companies and entrepreneurs are already forging ahead. business is leading the way and creating jobs. so the compelling question for all of us to think about for a minute is -- what is blocking our path to a stronger economic growth? to more jobs? and to better opportunities for all americans? there are some obstacles that will always be with us. there will always be

uncertainties and risks that we cannot foresee, but what we can plainly see is and urgent need for leaders in every sector and at every level, who are dedicated to meeting the country's challenges, solving problems, and helping america achieve her full potential. we all know that real leaders do not and cannot ignore reality. they do not sweep problems under the rug. they do not point fingers. they do not divide us. they seek to unite us. real leaders understand that americans can have big differences in philosophy but still find common ground for our common good. this nation has always succeeded when we have worked together.

real leaders would not wait another day without trying to solve the serious economic and financial challenges facing our country. they would not tell us that the solutions will just have to wait until after the elections. leadership is also required of we the people. we cannot simply point our fingers at washington and blame them. we have a responsibility to be honest with ourselves and consistent with those who represent us. as much as we might want our government to balance the budget, reduce the debt, and cut our taxes, all while providing each of us with an unlimited array of benefits, we know that that just cannot work. it just will not work. the business community also has a responsibility to be. we must not lose the spirit of

enterprise and of risk-taking that have served this country and our economy so well. and if government starts removing the impediments that we have long identified as stifling growth and jobs, then we will be in a position in the business community to start taking far more risk and making more significant investments. the business community also has a fundamental duty to stand up for the one economic system that can restore our nation to growth and prosperity and opportunity, and that is the american free enterprise system. if we, the business community, do not do it, wells will? i am refers to say and regularly comment that this is not a perfect system, but no one has ever found a better one.

for lifting people out of poverty, for inspiring hard work and creativity, and personal responsibility, for generating dynamic growth that is broadly shared across the society, and for keeping the american dream alive for generation after generation, there is no better system. so as the chamber turns 100 years of age in this pivotal year, we are reaffirming our commitment to free enterprise. the greatest economic system ever devised and the driver of america's greatness. we all know that this is no time to sit and wait and see what happens. it is time to live up to our legacy and make the right things happen. you will see us striving to do so throughout the year on the hill, before the administration, in the courts,

in the court of public opinion, and, ladies and gentlemen, with the most aggressive grass-roots mobilization and voter education program in our history. we passionately believe that it is time to stop apologizing for the one system in our society that really works -- the american free enterprise system -- and it is time for government and our fellow citizens to understand that the only way out of the problems we face is to drive economic growth from one end of this country to the other. so let's go do it. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> mel, the chairman of the presidential's cabinet of

economic advisers talks about equality. he spoke at the center for american progress for about an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. my name is neera tanden. i want to thank you you for joining us. i want to welcome alan krueger to the center. he wants to discuss how rising inequality in the united states is a threat to our middle class. he has been engaging in a broad

body of work around this. we are excited to kick off the discussions this year. we are very lucky to have him here at this point in time when the nation is really engaged in a debate about american's growth and how much and how important a thriving middle class is to that growth. i think on a regular basis, we talk about a strong american -- a strong middle class. these ideas have become, in some ways, almost a cliche. i think it is important for us to remember that the actual notion of a strong and vibrant middle class is the most important ingredient to a strong economy. a growing economy. a point that is uniquely american. the united states model that was developed in the 21st century of a series of proposals in the public and private sector and insuring that growth is scared has -- is shared has been fundamental to american strength.

while we debate it back and forth, it is particularly important as progress is that we recognize how -- as progressives is that we recognize how important it has been. a thriving middle-class is under attack. we have been going through economic change and dislocation that has made people very wary of the economic challenges we face. we would like to focus the conversation of economics on where we are today. i think from the perspective of the center, we have to be reminded of how much the roles have really changed. how conservative economic policies have really hindered growth for the middle class. just a few statistics i would

like to cite. in 1966, the richest americans held just 9% of all income. today, they take home almost 24% and control 40% of the nation's total wealth. they have seen their share of the national income fall. a child born into poverty after world war ii -- only one in three would get that kind of shot today. when we think about that promise of the american dream and we think of ensuring that we have opportunities for all americans, we have to recognize that is a real question today. some of the stuff we have seen in the political debates challenge that. at its core, our country is wrestling with how do we ensure our children have that same

opportunity and fairness that generations previously had. this is why i think the president's speech last month in kansas was so important. he really located this debate in terms of the long-term struggles we have had in wrestling with those policy and economic issues about how we have to ensure that the middle class received that sense of fairness. that wariness that the american dream is no longer alive for everyone is really in our politics today. one quote i would like to read from the president's speech is, "what this -- what made this country great has eroded. he went on to say, "our success has not just been about -- it

has been about building a nation where we are all better off." that is why we are so excited to have alan krueger here today. there is no one i know in the field of economic policy who has dived deeper into that question of ensuring how we can have policies that ensure we are all better off. i meant him two years ago. we worked together on health care reform. he was a star in the field of economics. he combines an economics rigour with a warm heart. he really has spent his career diving in to these important issues around policies. which is, why do people do what they do? how can we ensure a public and private sector -- that we are

making policies that work for everyone? that we focus on at -- that we focus on economic opportunity for all americans and ensure that we are doing the right things by all americans. that is the set of values and approaches that he brought every day to our discussions of health care reform. and what he does every day. now as chairman of the economic advisers. i cannot think of a better person when struggling with these questions about inequality and shared values to have here with us then alan krueger. alan? [applause] >> that was a more dramatic transition then i was expecting. thank you everyone for inviting me here today. i want to congratulate you for

becoming the president of cap. i know it is not easy to follow in your predecessors of footsteps, but i am sure you can. as you mentioned, we worked closely together on health care reform. what i remember most about you from those days was how cheerful you were at every meeting and have dedicated you were to the goal of expanding health insurance to all those who could not afford coverage or who had been denied coverage for reasons of previous health conditions. will return to this issue at the end of my remarks. the topic i will address is an apology. as you know, in a labor economist. labor economics is studying work and pay. it occurred to me that labor economics can also be described as an attempt to understand

inequalities' related to the job market. although i have done much research in my career on inequality, i used to have an aversion to using the word "inequality." in fact, the wall street journal once run -- ran an article in the mid-90s that preferred use the word dispersion. but the rise in income dispersion along so many dimensions has gotten to be so great, that i now think inequality is a more important -- appropriate term. the rise of inequality in the u.s. over the last three decades has reached the point that inequality in income is causing an unhealthy division in opportunities. and it is a threat to our economic growth. restoring a greater degree of

fairness to the u.s. job market would be good for business, good for the economy, and the good for the country. president obama summarized the rise of inequality very successfully in his kansas speech when he said, "over the last few decades, the runs of the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther a part. the middle class has shrunk." these trends are well documented, but worth reviewing to understand the implications. if you indulge me, i will show you some charts. the first chart shows the annual growth rate of real income for families in each 1/5 of the income distribution over two periods.

the figure shows that all 1/5's put together from the end of world war ii to the late 1970's, but since the 1970's, income has grown more for families at the top of the income distribution then in the middle. it has shrunk for those at the bottom. we were growing together for the first three decades after world war ii. but for the last three decades, we have been growing further a part. here at cap, i should point out that the pattern during the post-1970. is not monolithic. the next chart shows the period from 1992 to 2000. this period was an exception. strong economic growth and the policies of the clinton administration led all segments of the income distribution to

grow together again. indeed, all income groups experienced an increase in income for years in the spirit from 1992 to 2000. i can also note that parenthetically, there is no sign in this data that the tax increases of the early 1990's had an adverse affect on income growth. the next chart shows the level of income earned by the median household each year after adjusting for inflation. half of households burn less in the meeting, have earned more. the median is right in the middle. you concede that the median household saw a decline in real income in the year 2000. it is the first decade of the 2000's -- if the first decade of the 2000's had sought the

growth of the 1990's, middle- class families would have an extra -- to spend on their mortgages, rent, food, or to add to their savings. the next chart shows how much after-tax income has grown for parts of the income distribution since 1979. again, after adjustingagain, afr inflation. this is based on a different source of data from income tax returns. the numbers are from the nonpartisan congressional budget office. the congressional budget office noted in a recent report that the top 1% of families saw a 278% increase in their real, after-tax income from 1979 to 2007. the middle 60% had an increase of less than 40% in this period. because of these trends, the very top income earners have pulled much further ahead of everyone else. the following chart shows the

share of all national income by the top 1% and 0.1% of households. not since the roaring 1920's has the share of income going to the very top had such high levels. the magnitude of these shifts is mind boggling. the share of all income growing to the top 1% increased by 13.5 percentage points. that was from 1979 to 2007. this is the equivalent of giving -- to the top 1%. put it another way, the increase of the share of income over this period exceeds the total amount received by the entire bottom 44% of households. as a consequence of the

momentous shift in the income distribution that i have just described, the middle class has shrunk. the next chart illustrates this development by showing a percentage of households whose income falls within 50% of the median. that is, we placed a band around the middle, plus or minus 50%. we calculated households that fell within this band. we found that just over half of all households with income of 50% of the median in 1970 to -- the middle class has been shrinking for some time.

my friend from harvard used the term "polarization" to describe what is going on in the income distribution. we have more families falling into the extreme end and far fewer in the middle. the statistical word for this, i should note, is [inaudible]. i can see why polarization has caught on. higher income inequality would be less of a concern if low income earners became high income earners at some point in their career or if children of low income parents had a good chance of climbing up the income scales when they grow up.

in other words, if we had a high degree of income mobility, we would be less concerned about the degree of inequality in any given year. but we do not. moreover, as inequality has increased, evidence suggests that year to year, generation to generation, economic mobility has decreased. recent work finds that a worker's initial position in the distribution is highly predictive of how much he or she will earn later in their career. studying tax data, for example, finds that income mobility over the career has been stable since the 1970's when all workers are considered as a whole. for men, however, there has been a decline in income mobility over their career since the 1970's.

this decline has been offset by an increase for women, but a different pattern for women is probably a result of changing the labor force attachment over their career rather than an increase in career mobility due to a fundamental change in the operation of the labor market. more research has been done on the question of intergenerational income mobility. studies that followed data over long periods of time between parents and children find correlations between parental and child incomes. a reasonable summary is that the correlation between parents and their children's income is

around 0.5%. this is remarkably similar to the correlation that was found between parents' height and their children's height over 100 years ago. this fact shows a correlation of 0.5% between parents' income and children's income in perspective. a child born to a family in the bottom 10% of the income distribution rising to the top 10% as an adult is about the same chance as a dad who is 5'6" tall having a son who grows up to be over 6'1". this happens, but not that often. another statistic between parents and children as income is called the intergenerational income elasticity.

this means that if someone's parents earned 50% more than the average, their child can be expected to earn about 20% more than the average in their generation. as was recently highlighted in "the new york times," parental income matters more for success in the u.s. than a dozen other economic countries. new research from the university of ottawa finds intriguing links between inter-generational inequality and income inequality at a point in time. countries that have a high degree of inequality also tend to have less economic mobility across generations. we have extended his work using

after-tax and income inequality data. i can show you this in the next figure. this figure shows a scatter diagram. it is the relationship between income mobility across generation, that is on the vertical axis. inequality in the 1980's, that is on the horizontal axis. each point here represents a country. higher values along the horizontal axis represent greater inequality in family resources, roughly around the time that the children represented in the vertical axis were growing up.

higher values on the vertical axis indicate less economic mobility across generations. i have called this curve "the great gatsby curve." this indicates that countries that have more inequality across households also had more persistence in income from one generation to the next. i documented at the beginning of my talk that the u.s. has seen a very sharp rise in inequality since the 1980's. if this relationship across countries holds in the future, we would expect to see a rise in the persistence in income across the generations in the u.s. as well.

that is, we would expect to see mobility decline because of the trends that have taken place over the past few decades. while we will not know for sure whether and how much income mobility across generations has been exasperated -- i should say income immobility across generations has been exasperated in the u.s., we will not know this until today's children have grown up and completed their careers. we can use the great gatsby curve to make a rough test. the next figure displays this forecast. what we have done is to take this relationship and say, we know that since the 1980's it has increased in the u.s., but plug in that increase and make a projection using this line to

project how intergenerational mobility will change in the future. if you want to see this again, we can probably go to instant replay. each point shows five years. this is a sobering prediction. that is an excellent question. this is not quite in a steady state because the way to read this is -- this is for roughly today's children and when today's children have grown up.

i will be happy to take questions afterward. so, how we interpret this? what the figure shows is that this intergenerational elasticity is expected to rise from 0.47% to 0.56%. in other words, the disadvantages of income is expected to rise about one quarter from the next generation as a result of the rise of inequality that the u.s. has seen in the past quarter of a century. it is hard to look at these figures and not be concerned that rising inequality is jeopardizing our tradition of equality of opportunity. the fortune of one parents seem to matter increasingly in our society.

children of wealthy parents already have much more access to opportunities to succeed than to parents of poor families. this is likely to be the case in the future unless we take steps to ensure that all children have access to quality education, health care, a safe environment, and other opportunities that are essentials to having a fair shot at economic success. next, i will describe and discuss some of the causes of the trends we have seen. as a labor economist, i feel compelled to talk about causality. in a mechanical sense, much of the rise of household income and equality in the u.s. have been traced to a rise in the average earnings. other factors, such as the number of workers per family and family labor supply decisions, also matter.

but understanding why the dispersion in wages has changed is key to understanding inequality in america. there is considerable professional disagreement about the causes of income dispersion in the u.s. in the mid 1990's, i did a poll of eight non-random group of professional economists attending a conference at the federal reserve. i asked them the extent to which various factors contributed to the rise of inequality. this survey, which was meant to give me a rough idea, took on a life of its own. it was reprinted in the economic

report of the president in 1997. then it was reprinted in "the new yorker" magazine. this is clearly a complicated dynamic that has changed the u.s. labor market. nonetheless, it gives a rough sense of the way economists think about these issues. the most important factor, according to respondents, was still biased technical change. a lot of activities that people do at work have become automated as a result of computers and information technology. much of this automation has favored people with the analytical skills to get the most out of the technology. i like to say, we have got from "the flintstones" to "the jetson's." attributing so much of the rise to shifts in demand across skill groups as a result of technological change can be a little bit misleading because there has also been a slowdown in the growth of the supply of relatively high educated workers in the u.s. during this period.

while the economy has continued to demand more highly skilled workers because of technological change over the last three decades, we have not increased our supply of highly educated workers at the same rate we have done previously. if you return to this poll, it shows the humility of economists. the second most common fact recited was "other and unknown." i think we've come to know more about this since then. the proportionate people in the

top 1% who were from the finance or real estate industry nearly doubled from 1979 to 2005. in 2005, executives from the financial and real estate sector made one quarter of all the income of the top 1/10 of 1%. another factor in my poll may matter now more than it did before -- that is, increased globalization. the number of workers against who the american labor force competes has jumped.

some have benefited as demand for the goods and services they provide have risen. but other workers have been left behind by globalization. the 2000 saw the worst record of job creating in 50 years. that was the case before the recession that started at the end of 2007. recent research suggests that china's very rapid adoption of cutting edge technology in many industries has had an even more profound affect on labor demand in the u.s. in 2000 than it did in the 1990's. there have also been important institutional changes that have contributed to the rise of income inequality in the u.s. union membership declined from 20% of employees in 1983 to 12% to today. this is important because unions effect the wage structure primarily by lifting

the wages of lower and middle class workers into the middle class. in addition, the decline and real value of minimum wage in the 1980's contributed to the rise of inequality as david lee and others have pointed out. lastly, i want to note that tax policy has played a role in rising inequality. although our tax code is still progressive, tax changes in the early 2000's favored wealthy people much more than other taxpayers. that compounded the widening gap in pre-tax incomes. as a result of reduced progressivity, the wealthy are now paying some of the lowest tax rates in the history of the united states.

average tax rates for the wealthiest 1/10 of 1% have been in decline for five decades. it should also be noted that our tax system is less progressive than that of other countries. this chart shows other countries. the blue bars indicate inequality in before-tax income. the red bars show inequality in after-tax income. the difference and height between bars is a measure of how much the tax code reduces inequality. of all of the oecd countries, only chile, korea, and switzerland have tax systems that produce inequality less than the u.s.

now, i can see why someone could support tax cuts to the top income earners if they had materially benefited the u.s. economy. but the macro evidence is clear that the economy did not perform any better after last decade's tax cuts than it did after taxes were increased on top earners in the early 1990's. i already showed you evidence that income growth is stronger for lower income families in the 1990's than it was in the last 40 years overall. this next chart shows that there was more job growth in start ups in the 1990's than in the 2001 to 2007 period. across all businesses, job growth was much smaller in the

2007 than in the 1990's. there is little support for the claim that reducing the progressivity of the tax code has spurred income growth, business formation, or job growth. next, i will discuss three potential consequences of rising inequality for the economy. i have already presented evidence suggesting that as inequality rises, the prospects for intergenerational mobility fall. support for equality opportunity should be a non- partisan issue. it is hard not to bemoan the fact that because of rising inequality, the happenstance of having been born to poor parents makes it harder to climb

the ladder of economic success. there is a cost to the economy and society when children from low income families do not have anything close to the opportunities to develop and use their talents as the more fortunate can from better off families who can't attend better schools, receive college prep tutoring, and draw on a network of family connections. one would think it inexcusable that public policy has exasperated this trend, but that is exactly what has happened over the last decade. as i mentioned, income tax changes has made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal -- not less. moreover, the drastic cut in the estate tax will produce economic mobility in the u.s. going forward as the tremendous resources accrued by the wealthy can now be transferred

to their heirs at much lower tax costs. two men have suggested a second way in which rising inequality and slow income growth for the vast middle class have harmed the u.s. economy. namely, by encouraging many families to borrow beyond their means to try to maintain their consumption and by reducing aggregate demand. in his book, "fault lines," he goes so far as to argue that this overleveraging as a result of increased inequality was a significant cause of the financial crisis in 2008. in the spirit of a man from the earlier era, he argues that an increase in inequality has reduced aggregate demand because the well off have a lower professional propensity to consume than everyone else. while one could reasonably

expect all families consume their permanent income, or lifetime income, over the course of their lifetimes, studies have found that the marginal propensity to consume is lower at higher income levels in the short run. and, one might expect that the reduction in the estate tax would be reduced since inheritances would be taxed at a lower rate. while the potential drag on aggregate demand from the income distribution is hard to document, the following calculation makes it clear that it could be substantial. as i mentioned earlier, the shared income going to the top 1% increased by 13.5% points from -- that is the equivalent

of about $1.1 trillion per year. families at the top of the income distribution is scarce. according to research, the top 1% of households saves about half of the increases in their wealth while the population at large has a general savings rate of about 10%. this implies that if another $1.10 trillion had been earned by the bottom 99% instead of the top 10%, it would be about $44 billion higher. this would be a 5% boost to consumption. there are many caveats attached to this calculation.

particularly because the propensity to consume are not well known in the upper end of the income distribution. and this does not say that the rise of inequality -- because households could have, and many probably did, borrow to make up for weak income growth. but the scope for such a borrowing has clearly come to an end. this calculation indicates the kind of latent pressure that could be placed on aggregate demand as a result of the changes we have seen in the income distribution. now that we are in a period of excess capacity, i think these calculations make clear that the economy would be in much better shape and demand would be stronger if the size of the middle class had not dwindled as a result of rising inequality over the past decades.

president obama made this point very clear in his kansas speech. "when middle class families can no longer afford to buy the businesses and services that are being sold, it is a drag on the entire economy from top to bottom." the third line of research on the consequence of rising inequality that i want to mention is that there has been an active force examining the connection between inequality and longer-term economic growth. in a paper it was argued that in a society where inequality is greater, political decisions are likely to result in policies that lead to less growth.

a new paper from the imf also finds that more equality in the income distribution is associated with more stable economic growth. less equality is associated with more instable economic growth. more fluctuations. historically, the growing middle class has led to new markets, supported economic growth, and built stronger communities. the studies on inequality and growth may have found an inverse relationship between those two variables for reasons that were pointed out two decades ago.

because the top has to save rather than spend their incomes. or for other reasons that were emphasized about excess borrowing. while research on the economic consequences of inequality is controversial, there is microeconomic evidence that in my view convincingly finds that wage discrepancies can be bad for employee morale and productivity. in one recent, randomized failed experiment, it was found that raising pay for workers who felt that they were underpaid substantially increased their productivity. but raising pay for those who did not feel underpaid had no effect on productivity. in another experiment, it was found that increasing the disparity in pay between pairs of workers decrease the productivity of both workers combined.

these studies and others suggest a more fair distribution of wages would be good for business because it would raise morale and productivity. this is in addition to any effect that the increase in size of the middle class would have on the demand of the business's products. my theme that rising inequality has been bad for the u.s. economy was nicely anticipated. heather recently wrote, "what we now know is that a strong middle class creates stable markets for businesses to invest. the decline of america's middle class creates real hardships for families and limits opportunity. but it also appears that the demise of our middle class is a part of what ails our economy overall." end quote. the next question to raise is

what should be done to bring back more fairness to the u.s. economy. to ensure that hard work and responsibility are rewarded by a good shot at making it into the middle class regardless of where someone starts out. while this could be the subject of another lecture, let me highlight a few specific areas of public policy to include. first, i promise to return to

the affordable care act. it is already helping middle class families. it has been well publicized that estimated 2.5 million young people have been able to get more health care because they stay on their parents plans. health insurance coverage did not rise for full-time students because they already had access to health insurance coverage. but it did rise for young adults who were not enrolled in school and who have parents with health insurance coverage. these are overwhelmingly responsible families who are working to maintain their position in the economy despite economic forces that have been working against them for decades. furthermore, when it is fully implemented, the affordable care act will help the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class by lowering the growth of health care costs by preventing those with pre- existing conditions from being denied health insurance coverage by creating exchanges for small businesses and lower income families to obtain health insurance at competitive rates and by providing tax subsidies to small businesses with lower income workers to purchase insurance. second, it is critical to take the steps necessary to ensure

that the current economic recovery continues to rebuild the middle class. although the economy has been expanding for 10 straight quarters, the right policy actions would strengthen economic growth. president obama proposed the american jobs act in september to strengthen the recovery and the job growth. among many measures to support the economy, the american jobs act included an extension of the payroll tax cuts through the rest of this year. it would put an extra $1,000 in the hands of a typical middle class family.

he also proposed continuing the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. although congress has extended both of these measures until the end of next month, it is critical for the recovery that they are extended through the rest of the year. the american jobs act also called for expanded reemployment services and a pathways back to work fund that states could use to help less skilled job workers find jobs. creating these opportunities for less skilled workers would get them back to work faster and help expand their opportunities in the future. third, i think it is clear that we cannot go back to the types of policies that exasperated the rise of inequality and threatened economic mobility in the first place if we want an economy that builds the middle

class. this means that we must adequately regulate excess risk taking and correct corrupt practices in the financial markets. it also means that we cannot go back to tax policies that did not generate faster economic growth for jobs, but rather increased inequality. instead of going backwards, we should adhere to principles like the buffet rule which states that those making more than $1 million per year should not pay a lower share of their income in taxes than middle class families. we should also end unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy and return the estate tax to what it was in 2009. we should ensure that all children have adequate nutrition, access to health care, secure environment, and a fair shot at education regardless of their parents' background.

lastly, i want to emphasize that restoring more fairness to the economy would be good for all parts of american society. this is not a zero sum game. the evidence suggests that a growing middle class is good for the economy. and that a more fair distribution of income would hasten economic growth. businesses would benefit from restoring more fairness to the economy by having more middle class customers, more stable markets. it would improve employee morale and productivity. president obama put it much better than i ever could. i will quote him. "this is not about class warfare.

this is about the nation's welfare. it is about making choices that does not punish people who have done well, but benefits the middle class and those fighting to get to the middle class and the economy as a whole." thank you very much. [applause] >> hello. thank you so much. this has been a fantastic speech. it is my honor to get a take on all of you for questions. i am a senior economist here at the center for american progress. i would like to take the privilege of asking the first question this morning. which is, do you think we can pull this economy out and move into a full-fledged recovery without focusing on rebuilding the middle class? >> well, i think the two are united, as i emphasized. continuing to strengthen the recovery is extremely important to building a brighter future. we know from much evidence that downturns are likely to hit the lower and middle class people

struggling to get to the middle class the hardest. an essential step is to ensure that the recovery continues. the economy is slowly healing. i think people understand that we're not going to solve them all overnight, but we are making progress. as we make that progress, we need a foundation for an economy that is built to last. that has more shared growth as the economy expands. that means investing more in education. that means making sure that there are those who have access to higher education. it means investing in our infrastructure.

i think it requires many steps, but in the near term staying focused on that recovery continuing is essential. >> i would like to open it up first to the questions from the press. >> [inaudible] my question is, do you believe the recent statistics on housing, auto sales, and labor on unemployment suggest that there will be more economic growth in 2012? >> that is a bit of a trick

question because the council of economic advisors make the forecasts. we produce forecasts twice a year. the last one was over the summer. we will release our next forecast together with budgets. i do not want to get ahead of the budget process. if you look at the statistics that are coming in, it is clear that we are painting a picture of an economy that is slowly recovering. it is extremely important that we keep that momentum going forward. steps that i would highlight most importantly are extending the payroll tax cuts through the end of the year. extending unemployment insurance. the congressional budget office

concluded that out of all the measures it looked at, extending unemployment benefits have the most bang for the buck in terms of supporting demand, raising economic growth, and creating jobs. >> the trend of income equality was apparent. why didn't tax policy, up with a specific answer at all? >> we were in a different policy environment that we were today. the tax rates increase in the early 1990's. we saw in a quality continue to rise in 2000. i would add tax policy for causing a tremendous widening the we have seen in after-tax incomes. i have no idea.

from my own perspective, tax policy, the tax-cut for the very wealthy -- i alluded to the large reduction in the estate tax -- has expanded in the u.s. >> yes. >> given that one in four home loans is underwater and one in 13 are 90 days past due, or will be to do anything until we address the differences in mortgage values and home values? that has typically been the way people build wealth in the united states. >> thanks, mike. the housing market poses challenges going forward. we're a long -- the problems are long time in the making.

one problem was the housing bubble that burst in 2006. prices came down considerably. middle class families saw a tremendous loss of wealth. that legacy has been it had when for the economy going forward. households are trying to pay down their debt. you mentioned household under water. the economy has been recovering in spite of those problems. the recovery would be more robust if we did not have those problems.

we overbuilt so much housing. residential construction has been very flat. in a typical recovery, residential construction is very strong. that is another drag on the economy. this came to a boil in the recession -- overboiled in the recession and we're digging a way past those. it is important that we take these steps that we can to keep the recovery going and the confidence comes back and that we get into more of it virtuous cycle were more people are going back to work and feeling more comfortable and they are spending more and a stronger economy will help the housing market. but that's not enough.

a tremendous amount of effort has gone into trying to assist the housing market in the sense of help homeowners modify their mortgages and refinance their mortgages, to take prudent steps so that they can take the advantage of the low interest rate that we now have and will help the recovery going forward. >> last question. >> and economists said international trade was a major reason for income and equality. do you agree? >> we live in a global world, and the world is more

integrated today that was back in the 1990's. we have had periods of strong growth when we were -- we saw all segments of society grow at that time. we are any more globalized economy today and we are competing with lower-paid workers in other countries, it is possible to thrive in this kind of environment. this will make this increase in globalization an advantage for the u.s. the president held an event yesterday on insourcing. the company's kind of go through their cost, their enterprise cost or total cost went to think about transportation.

they are beginning to make decisions to bring work back to the united states. that is a trend that we will see continue. we to look at ways where we can speed up that trend. another area i would highlight is the advantage in more production in the u.s. and hire skilled type work. we need to invest more in education of the future american workforce so that we can continue to thrive in this kind of environment. this is the second speech i've given as chairman of the council. i gave a speech in december about what kinds of things we expect to continue in the united states. jeff diseuse told me something

interesting -- jeff bezos told me something interesting. we have the best universities in the world. we have the most daring entrepreneurs. we have a system that brings all that together. we need to take in vanished of these advantages because the world is moving more in this direction. we do have the resources to match this moment and take advantage of the opportunities to produce better products and to take evanish of larger markets abroad -- to take advantage of larger markets abroad. >> thank you. [applause] we are done.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] snood gingrich continued his criticism of mitt romney. he also pledged his continued support for the federal mortgage tax reduction. then an interview with special middle east on for a george mitchell. then a forum on poverty and prosperity in america with have a smiley. -- with tavis smiley. >> tomorrow, david will talk

about congressional redistricting. 22 states have passed right to work was to allow them to support unions or not. the center for american progress will debate those laws. later, we will talk with frank newport about independent voters. tomorrow morning, a look at the stability of stability. live coverage begins at 10:30 eastern. >> chris matthews on the kennedy nixon debates. >> the second debate here. nixing gets control. so he brings the level of the temperatures in the room down to 40 degrees.

it is a meat locker. he goes racing down to the basement and finds the guy. there's another guy has a standing guard. he says it be do not get out of this, let me turn that thing up to 6470. there is another standout. the end up compromising. they go back up. had notle ideas they seen nixon sweat. they said they will not happen again. this is about who's going to roll america. >> sam donaldson interviews him. sarin added to the club p.m. eastern on a book tv. >> newt gingrich signed a pledge earlier stating that as president to keep the federal

mortgage tax deduction in place to encourage home ownership. this was organized by the homebuilders association as south carolina and the national association of home builders. the south carolina primary will be held on saturday january 21. their remarks are about 15 minutes. >> i want to start for a minute and talk about home ownership on a personal level. i cannot of a family in central pennsylvania. my dad ultimately became a career soldier, but before that, he went to college. while he was doing that, we lived in an apartment above a gas station right on the square, and we rented. when my dad was in the army, we went wherever of sam sent us, and we were always in army housing.

i remember the feeling my mother had after my dad retired and they finally were able to buy a house and moved into their property that was their house that they could take care of that they were proud of. she grew up in wisconsin, a town of 1600. in the late 1950's, her parents bought the house they now live in. over the years, the improved it. bake expanded it. -- they expanded it. the pride they take -- her mother's pride in their work that they put into their home, their sense of a homestead is what america is all about. i just want to say that those who live in high-rise apartment buildings rising for fancy newspapers in the middle of town after they read the metro who do not understand that for most

americans, the ability to buy a home, to have their own property, to have a sense of belonging is one of the greatest achievements of their life. it makes them feel like a good, solid citizens, gives them a place to route their children and grandchildren and have a better future. i have been very involved for a very long time in trying to make sure that we had the kind of program that enables every american to have a chance at buying a home. that does not mean every american understands how the budget. it does not mean every american should be lured into buying a house they cannot sustain, and it does not mean every american knows how to take care of the house without some training. i got very involved in the 1990's with habitat for humanity. habitat for humanity attracted people who were willing to help

build their own home. i remember being in sacramento at a house that was being built, and the family was there. the father was a crook, and the one daughter who was about eight years old took me into the place that was going to be her bedroom that they were building where they had asked her what she wanted. you cannot imagine the sense of pride and the sense of belonging that she had from that experience. let me say first of all -- we need to learn from the lessons of the last four or five years, but what we need to learn is not how to turn our back on home ownership. not how to turn our back on helping every american have a chance to own a house. what we have to learn is how to create a stable, safe mortgage system and how to help develop a system where folks who have never before had an house learn how to budget, learn how to take care of their house, learn how to be involved so that

ultimately, we can say to every american -- if you are willing to work and willing to learn, you, too, can have a chance to be and property owner and be a citizen of america. [applause] my good friend j.c. watts and i had a deep mutual commitment. we believe that when the founding fathers wrote in the declaration of independence, "we hold these truths to be self- evident that all men are created equal and that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that they actually meant every american. it took time to work it out, and we had terrible problems with slavery, terrible problems working our way through women's rights, terrible problems with segregation. america has never been perfect, but the ideal of america is a wonderful thing, and we're still

wrestling with it. how do we work together so that every child in america genuinely has the opportunity to pursue happiness? notice it is "pursuit" there is no guarantee of happiness. there's the suggestion that what we need our happiness stamps or that you have the right to sue if you feel unhappy or that we would redistribute happiness. that is not what we say. what we say is each of you and every one of your children and your grandchildren has the right to get up every morning and had a dream and work hard and learn every day and pursue that dream. i will sign the pledge to defend that mortgage reduction. [applause] but i also want to make a point.

i want to make two sets of points about the mess we are in. one about how the government has failed the average american and what about the right strategy for getting out of it. when i see hundreds of billions of dollars given away so if you are big enough you get the money. if you are a french bank, you get $19 billion. if you are goldman sachs, you get $13 billion out of aig from the federal government. somehow, that money did not exactly trickle-down. you go talk to folks whose mortgages are under water. they somehow did not get the same break as a multinational bank. you talk to the folks who are going to pay the taxes and pay off the debt, and they somehow do not get the break. i just want to say to all of you -- i believe we should have an audit and every american should have the right to know -- where did every penny go? who got it? why did they get it? why are we on the hook for it? [applause]

there is some counterpressure among the elites about raising questions. let me tell you -- the american people have the right to know, and people who run for high office have an obligation to be transparent and available to the american people because without their knowledge, how do you really have a free society? if the federal reserve can spend trillions of dollars without being accountable to anybody, how do we the people meet we thr obligations? i want you to know that i am committed to we the people being real. i am committed to us knowing what is going on. the reason is that we cannot figure out in 2008, 2009, 2010 -- how will we know what to do in the future? without the knowledge of who got

bailed out and where the money came from and how much we're still on the hook for, with your help and your support, i will actively pursue that. let me talk about the future. the number one thing we could do that would be relatively easy that would start turning around the housing market and start turning around the economy overnight is very simple. repeal the dodd-frank bill and you immediatelare really better. i take the position that, if with your help, i become president, i will ask the new congress when they come in on generate third to stay in session -- not go home, stay in session -- and i will ask them, before i am sworn in on general 20th, to pass 3 repeals. -- on january 20, to past three repeals. to repeal obamacare.

to repeal dodd-frank. and to repeal star banc oxley which has added tons of paperwork if congress will do that before the 20th, then on the first day in office i will sign all three repeals and we can start getting back down to work creating jobs in america. i will also save you that the number one key to bringing housing values back up is to create jobs. if we create jobs in sufficient quantity, prices will naturally arise because people will be able to pay for it appeared as people's incomes go up, there will have the desire to live better, to move into better homes, and to be more engaged. committed.

a 12.5% corporate tax rate that will make us competitive everywhere in the world and will enable us to bring back home $700 billion in profits that are locked up overseas. and we will act again general election -- general electric to pay taxes. it will be a low and afraid that they will fire the lawyers and pay the tax. so american workers have the most modern equipment in the world to be the most productive, the most efficient, and the most creative so we can compete with china and india and we can win. and i am for abolishing the death tax permanently so that everybody is in a position to know that, if you work hard your whole life, politicians will not review of when you die. having said that on the tax-cut, we also need an american energy policy and i will apply it here in south carolina. we needed policy generating so much energy that we do not care

what happens in the middle east. we need a policy of generating some much energy that no american president ever again bows to saudi king. [applause] and let me give you the south carolina part because it gets pretty good. we should be minutely begin developing the $29 billion of natural gas offshore which is worth $80,000 per job if you look at it happens in louisiana. those are good high-paying jobs. we should have an agreement that the state gets half the money and the feds gets half the money. that should of help you avoid raising taxes in south carolina and you can finish modernize in the port of charles. so it is prepared to receive new ships when the panel called -- with the panama canal is opened. so now you have jobs at of energy, and let me go one step

further. the boston study group said in august that, by 2015, it will be less expensive in total costs, energy, paper work, everything, less expensive to manufacture in south carolina then to manufacture in china. i want to be here as your president. when you a pile of the new tax provisions i have supplied, when you get things up and running, when you have manufacturing rebuilt on a grand scale, when you have that port modernized, i want to be here with you for the first container ship that leaves charleston carrying manufactured goods to shanghai so that we are back in business manufacturing. if you have a job creating programs -- we created 4 million jobs when i worked with bill clinton appeared when i worked

with ronald reagan, we created 1000 jobs in one month. be 25 million jobs in seven years. when we create jobs, housing prices will start back up. when we get rid of dodd-frank, housing prices will start back up. if we then make it relatively easy to buy the equivalent to be in business and have a low tax rates so homebuilders can build houses, we will see once again a renewal of the american home- building industry, and renewal of american homes, and a reestablishment of the right to live in your home as a key part of the american system. i am with you. i want your help. but i want to help you appeared together, we will get america back on the right track. thank you. good luck, and god bless you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> it is easy to follow the candidates through social media. follow with the candidates are posting in real time. read the latest from political reporters. and with -- and what viewers like you are saying on facebook end end and more. access the most recent video from the candidates. >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney will meet with veterans in south carolina pin he will be joined by john

mccain and south carolina gov. niki haley. you can watch live coverage just after 5:00 p.m. eastern. at 6:20 p.m. eastern, on the other side of the state of about two hundred 50 miles away, local republicans will hold a presidential candidates' forum. so far, newt gingrich and rick santorum have said they will be attending. we will have live coverage from duncan, south carolina. >> if we begin now to match our policies with our ideas, then i believe that it is just possible that we will come to admire this country and not simply because we were born here, but because of the brave and good land that you and i want it to be and that together we have made. that is my goal. that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united

states pierre >> as candidates campaigned for presidency this year, we'll look at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to election day either. >> these young people, and when they get out of this wonderful university, will have difficulty finding a job. we have to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape, and pass on the american dream to them. >> go to our website. >> should the government be responsible. -- irresponsible for monitoring

the internet for profanity? you can see perspectives on this issue online, including the argument in the court case. >> we know what the commission's rules might be, although i do not know that i can go on beyond the bewilderment position you have appeared we have no -- you have. >> the commissions have paid a safety harbor for programming after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m.. any broadcaster who is under some confusion in their own mind over whether a particular broadcast would be found in the sent by the commission are not can simply put the programming in the safe harbor. >> clip and a share. >> for senate majority leader george mitchell spoke earlier about the middle east peace

process and the iran nuclear program. he is president obama's special middle east envoy. this is hosted by the atlantic. >> just take those open seats. it will warm my heart. we have one, two, three. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. the atlantic exchange series is a new product of the atlantic, something that we're trying to put together, consequential people with consequential ideas. we have partnered with the abraham center for middle east peace. it is highlighting the four-part series that we have -- it is an important and a consequential look at this ongoing oldster in

global affairs. ulcer in -- ongoing bolste global affairs. these are meant to be informal, typically bear. we will get rid of the ties and jackets eventually it and make it jeans and t-shirts because this is a hot room appeare. i want to recognize danny abraham. way to the crowd here. [applause] it is a real honor to have him with us. and james bennett is behind the c-span cameras. it is terrific to have c-span with us as well. and i also want to pay respect to my colleague john gould.

he basically runs the show. drawn runs theatlantic.com can he came to me and said that we have this four-part series. i then proceeded to provide an excellent team. we put together tonight's event. thank you all very much for this. you know the seven-term former congressman from minnesota and questions about the middle east peace was one of the most effective negotiators. of course, he is the new president of the abraham center for middle east. this is a defining challenge for him as i think it is, in my

view, for the united states. jeff goldberg has written so much on these issues. he covers all of the terrain. i have written some oabout it. there is hardly an issue that draws out more of an energetic and vibe and sometimes a toxic vibe than this issue tonight. i think we will handle it credibly and with civility but with seriousness and really drive down into some of the issues we think are important in terms of looking at this into the future. let's talk about this tonight's gathering. we will show a very short clip.

>> it is truly an honor to be associated with the atlantic. two years ago, i left a job that i truly loved in the united states congress. i did so to join an extraordinary man, a man who is, in his heart and in every borboe in his body, an american patriot. he focused much of his life on one core mission, which is reflected in the mission of the outstanding abraham middle east peace, to resolve the israeli- palestinian conflict. and to do so in terms that respect both sides and have a dignified presentation in terms of the narrative of both people.

when i joined the center, our team -- and i want to thank tony for standing and sarah bergman. i want to thank josh cohen and madeleine shatneschner. with all of us at the center, what we desired to do was fill a vacuum that we thought existed here and washington and quite frankly throughout our country. that is a space where the israeli-palestinian conflict can be presented in an objective fashion where the position of both the israelis and the palestinians can be outlined from an honest, factual point of view. on top of the presentation, in an objective fashion, offer the

bridging proposals that some well-intentioned people have laid out over the years. our multimedia presentation focuses on those four core issues -- border security, refugees, and jerusalem to sum it up, this is my own personal view. we will go to universities. we have set up nine or 10, starting with princeton. we will go through the northeast, down the west coast, and hopefully all of the country. will go to congress and set up meetings with staff people. we will go to organizations that represent the variety of opinion in the american jewish community. we will talk with religious groups of all kinds. we will talk with groups of all ideological backgrounds. with all that said and done, my personal goal is this. the next time an american president bears to make a

speech on the middle east -- theirs to make a speech on the middle east that includes the conflict and there's to say that the basis of negotiation will be the 1967 line, i want a consensus of the american people to applaud. and i do not want that president, whomever she or he may be, to be subjected to a false-that just does not reflect reality. [applause] having said that, i want from danny's perspective and from all of us at the center for middle east peace to offer this very quick observation with respect to tonight's honored guest, senator george mitchell. in this town tonight, there is a avoid, a void of men and women who have the dignity and the integrity that all of us expect from our public servants, whether they be democrats or

republicans or anything in between. there is truly in fact one man who, at every stage of his public and private career, has embodied the kind of character and integrity and dignity that we all expect. whether you agree with him 100% or 80% -- no one agrees less than 80% -- his very purposeful and the mission that he provides -- most of what comes up is honesty in my humble opinion. with that, we are truly indebted to senator mitchell for being with us this evening and thank you so much again to the atlantic for having him. >> we will show a two-minute clip. it just happened. [video clip]

♪

>> here we go. [applause] i think the next requisition request is surround sound and one of those giant screens. but thank you very much. when you go onto the website, it is a terrific expos say when you

look at the four parts -- when you look ane at the four pods. as robert mentioned, one of the key participants in this administration and generally throughout his life in dealing with conflict resolution in stressed that circumstances, whether in baseball or firms, in the congress or the senate, or the middle east peace, as king george mitchell to serve as the special envoy for this -- asking george mitchell to serve as the special envoy for this mission. jeffrey goldberg will takeover and then we will have a conversation. after that, we will open it to the audience and all of you. it will get hotter. and we will have a good time

with that. without further ado, let me invite senator george mitchell. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presence. my thanks to the atlantic and to dan abraham and bob wexler for organizing this event. danny has been a friend for many, many years. he is one of the most ardent and persistent advocates for peace in the middle east. and i commend him for that encourage him to continue. i was pleased with some reservations, which will explain in a moment, to accept his invitation to speak here this evening. he served with great distinction in the house of representatives for many years. i know that danny is like to

have them as we all are. i was, at first, reluctant to accept danny's invitation to come here. i thought the atlantic, the abraham center for middle east, people who spend their lives studying this issue -- and i have always been somewhat intimidated being asked to speak an audience in which all or most of the members know about the subject and i do. but then i reflected on my first days in the u.s. senate. i entered the senate under unusual circumstances. i was serving as a federal district court judge in my home state of maine when one of maine's centers was appointed the secretary of state. -- senators was appointed the secretary of state. there's a lot of conversation

over to the governor would select to finish that term. my name was not on that list. i had been appointed a federal judge just the year before. so no one thought that i was being considered. neither did i.. on the night before the governor said he would have a press conference at the state capital, the media was filled with speculation. like everyone else, i went to bed wondering what the governor would do the next day. late that evening, my phone rang. it was the governor calling. he said, i would like you to come down to the state capitol tomorrow noon so that i can announce that i will point you to the united states senate. i said, well, gee, governor. this is a big decision. i have only been a federal judge for less than a year.

i need time to think about it. a need to talk to my family. i need to consult with others. he said, i give you one hour. [laughter] when i protested that the time was inadequate, he insisted. he said, look, when you say no, i have to look for somebody else by tomorrow noon. it is already late at night and i can i give you more than one hour. saw a immediately called my three older brothers. -- so i immediately called my three older brothers. i have three older brothers who are very famous athletes. they are known extremely well, not just in a small town, but throughout the state and shortly throughout new england. i was not as good as my brothers as an athlete. in fact, i was not as good as anybody's brother. [laughter] i was soon known as joni mitchell's kid brother, the one

that was not any good. so i already had an inferiority complex and a highly competitive attitude that persist to this day. many years later, now a grown man, i hung up the phone from the governor and i called my brothers. ostensibly to seek their advice. [laughter] but i confess that there was a note of -- when i informed them that the governor had called and wanted to appoint me to the united states senate. i said, what do you think about that? i'd rather said, john, everybody knows that you were a born loser. nobody knows how you became a federal judge. you certainly could not win a

state election so you better stay where you are. i'd rather tony said let's take a look at this from the point of view -- my brother tony said let's take a look at this from the point of view of the people of maine. is it not obvious that you are not among them. after this, i hung up the phone and called the governor. i said, governor, i do not need an hour. i already have all the reassurance i knees in my ability to serve in this position and i accepted and i went down to the state capital of the next day. the it -- the governor announced the appointment and i got on an airplane and flew to washington. i went up to the senate and i was sworn in. the ceremony took about 10 seconds. if you turned aside, you missed it. as soon as i was sworn in, a young man came up to me and introduced themselves as senator

muskie's former administrative assistant and now he was mine. he read off a list of things that i was to do for the remainder of that day. then he said we have a very interesting invitation for you. i said, what is it? he said, there are 3000 certified public accountants meeting in washington. they just called and asked if you come down to the washington hotel and speak at their annual convention and delivered the keynote address tonight. i said, gosh, that is amazing. until yesterday, i did not know that i would be here. how these guys had the foresight to hold this position open for me -- they had four last minute cancellations. they heard someone was swearing in and they felt that you're the only member of congress who did not have anything to do tonight. i said, ok, what do they want me to talk about.

he said, the tax code. me tod, you want tell 3000 certified public accountants what is in the tax code? i can do that. and this young man looked at me and with a voice dripping with sarcasm and condescension said, you are now united states senator. you will regularly be called upon to speak in public on subject you know nothing about. so if you want to be a good senator, you better get started right now. [laughter] get down there tonight and tell those 3000 cpa's what is in the tax code. so i went down there and told them what is in the tax code. and here i am tonight to tell all of you experts on the middle east what is going on there. [applause] >> i will undoubtedly enjoy it until i get some questions from

people who really know. [laughter] but i did want to make some remarks. i was told i was limited to 10 minutes. that is tough for a former u.s. senator. the senate has a rule of unlimited debate. as a consequence, after many years there, including several years as senate majority leader, have developed the dubious ability and skill to be able to speak in indefinite length on any subject without prior notice. either possessing or conveying any knowledge. i have been able to fill the blanks in any speaking program that has existed in washington for many years. i will let do that tonight. i will try to stick to the time limit imposed on me. but, of necessity therefore, i can only speak briefly on the subject and in a general way. there will be many subjects that

will be of interest to you, but i will not be able to cover them in these few comments. but i will take questions letter from you and from the moderators. but there are a few thoughts that i have that i want to express directly. and that is the reason asked to say a few words at the outset. as you all know, the conflict is deeply rooted in history. it involves a highly emotional issues, religion, national identity, territorial competition. right now, pessimism is widespread. there are many, many reasons for all of us to be skeptical about the prospects for success. the conflict has gone on for so long. it has had such destructive effects. the level of distrust and hostility on both sides is so

high that many and perhaps most here in our country and elsewhere regard it as an unsolvable. but i believe that the pursuit of peace is so important. it demands our maximum effort, no matter the difficulties, no matter the setbacks. the key to success is really easy to state. but exceptionally difficult to achieve. it is the mutual commitment of israel and palestinians in the active participation of the united states government with the support and assistance of many other governments and institutions who can and want to help. they must address the task, which is to reconcile the palestinian goal of a viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps.

and the israeli bowl of a jewish state with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. that should not be beyond the ability of political leaders if they have the will to do it. in january 2009, just before leaving office, president bush spoke in jerusalem. he said, "the pointed departure for permanent status negotiations is clear. there should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. the agreement must establish palestine as a homeland for the palestinian people just as israel is a homeland for the jewish people. these negotiations must ensure

that israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders and they must ensure that the state of palestine is viable, contiguous, sovran, and independent -- sovereign, and independent. it is imported that each side understands that satisfy the others fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. security for israel and liability for the palestinian state are in the mutual -- and the viability for the palestinian state are in the mutual interest." stated another way, neither israel nor the palestinians can achieve their principal objectives by denying to the other its principal objectives.

the palestinians will not get a state until the people of israel have a reasonable and a sustainable degree of security. but i do not believe that they can get that unless and until the palestinians get a state. there are risks to all courses of action. there is no course that either side can take which is fully assured of success. so the question is one of measuring possible benefits and potential risks. when taking office in 2009, president obama publicly reaffirmed the policy that president bush had set forth. it seemed then, in early 2009, that the culture of peace, which had been so carefully nurtured

during the oslo process, had largely dissipated. it was replaced by a sense of futility, of despair, of the inevitability of conflict. the fighting in gaza had just ended. the palestinians were deeply divided. and the uncertainty of the israeli elections lay just ahead. few them believed that there was any chance at restarting peace negotiations, let alone achieve any peaceful end to the conflict. unfortunately, three years later, that remains largely the case. a solution cannot be imposed externally. the parties themselves must negotiate directly with the active and sustained support of the united states. this will require of them

compromise and flexibility and, most of all, it will require leadership. the quartet is now trying to get israel and the palestinian authorities back to the negotiating table. the recent meeting in jordan sponsored by the government in coordination with the quartet represent a step in the -- a step in the right direction. they should be encouraged to continue those meetings and we, in the united states, should do all we can to facilitate a continuing and meaningful direct exchange of views among the parties. as difficult as it seems -- and i am now responded to the question raised in the video -- i still believe that this conflict can be ended. i believe that, in part, while i recognize that there will be enormous political pain on both sides from negotiating an

agreement, that pain will in fact be much less than what they will endure if they do not negotiate an agreement. it is a long while that has created a false sense of comfort and security. but if history is any guide, that will not last. and if the conflict resumes and continues, both israelis and palestinians could face a future filled with uncertainty and anxiety. that includes, of course, the possibility of renewed violence. there are other dangers. let me mention just a few of them. for the israelis, demography -- there are now between five

points and 5 million and 6 million jews living between the jordan river and the mediterranean sea. overall, the arab birthrate is much higher and, within a few years, they will be in the majority. some demographic predictions published just yesterday suggest that the populations will be about equal in 2015. and by the year 2020, there will be nearly half a million more arabs than jews in that region. israel will then have to choose between being a jewish state and a democratic state. it cannot be both once the to- state solution is lost. that is a painful choice that

the people of brazil -- people of israel should not have to make. the barrier was built and has largely succeeded in keeping suicide bombers out. but the real threat to israel now comes from markets. how moss has thousands. they are crude -- now come from rockets. has thousands. they are crude and they are dangers. over time, they could build more and better rockets. hezbollah has tens of thousands of them. there are more effective, although also limited in range. hezbollah is engaged in an effort to upgrade their systems with greater accuracy and more destructive power. finally, and perhaps most

dangerously, iran now has rockets that can reach israel when launched from iran itself. they do not yet have the precision needed to strike specific military targets. but they could cause enormous destruction in cities. the united states is fully committed to israel's security. and that commitment is firm and unshakeable. it has continued for 60 years and will go on what ever the administration in our country. to honor it, we have provided enormous financial and military support to israel and, most recently, we have assisted in the development of an effective anti-missile system. just last week, the u.s. and israel announced the largest ever joint military exercises focused on missile defense. but it is unknown and it will be never known until the event

itself, whether that or any system could intercept the potentially large number of missiles that could be launched in an all-out conflict. thus, israel's very existence could be at risk and could face severe damage. the third risk is in isolation. israel's support in the united states is very strong. but it is declining elsewhere. a short time ago, israel had good relations with turkey and egypt. but the relationship with turkey has deteriorated and with egypt, it is threatened. of course, we all know what has happened in international forums in recent years with a very lopsided vote on these issues. let me conclude with a few comments about the palestinians who also face very serious

problems. not the least of which is the indefinite continuation of the occupation under which they have not had the right to govern themselves for many, many decades. in 1948, the united nations proposed a plan to petition the area and create two states. israel accepted it. the arabs rejected it. and the first of several wars began, all of them one by an increasingly strong israel. -- all of them won by an increasingly strong israel. every arab leader today would gladly accept that 1948 plan if it were still available. but it is not still available. and never again will be. since then, the plans offered to the palestinians have been less attractive and they have been rejected as well.

i told both chairman arafat and directly ofabass that there is no evidence to suggest that the offers will get any better in the future. to the contrary, all of the evidence points to exactly the opposite direction. they have to sit down and participate in direct negotiations and get the best deal they can, even though it is not 100% of what they want. they have to bring the occupation to an end and get their own state and then build on it as israel has done since it was established. under the outstanding leadership of prime minister fight yet, palestinians have -- prime minister fayad, palestinians

have demonstrated it they can do it. unfortunately, while the state- building effort must continue, it cannot be sustained in the absence of any progress on the political side. they are inextricably linked. in order for there to be progress on one, there must be progress on both. it is a daunting challenge to rebuild trust, not only between the political leaders, but between the two peoples through long and bitter history of conflict. they must find a way to do it, to renew hope, to continue the search for peace and we must persevere in helping them. thank you very much for having me. and i will be pleased now to respond to questions. [applause] >> thank you, sir.

[inaudible]

>> let me start by thanking the original 1 >> the microphone -- let me start by thanking -- >> the microphone. >> thank you for helping to convene this. steve, for those of you who do not know, is one of the only people in washington who can get a pack and the center for washington in the same room. also called, as they say. -- moscow couglet me start somet narrowly and then brought in and out as we go. let me start with a couple of events right at the beginning of your tenure as on the boenvoy. start with annapolis.

condoleezza rice in her latest book suggested that the obama administration missed an opportunity, that the previous prime minister of israel put a remarkably expensive offer before the palestinians and that the obama administration could have built on that. instead, the obama administration reset the clock, erased the past, and demanded a settlement freeze. why happened? why did annapolis fall away? why did that offer completely fall away? >> it is a matter of well- established public record. i went to the region just a few days after my appointment. it was in the midst of the israeli election campaign, which have been fed pureed 10, 2009. about two weeks before the election, olmert made public the

details of the offer that he had made during the annapolis process in his discussions with abass. immediately, the major candidates to succeed olmert, now prime minister netanyahu and the previous four and minister, rejected olmert's proposal. and prime minister netanyahu said publicly several times and privately that he did not agree with olmert's proposal, was not bound by them, rejected them completely, and would not accept them as the basis for further discussion. he told me that personally, directly. he said it publicly in numerous

newspaper articles that reported that. you can agree or disagree with the prime minister's decision. but there can be no dispute about fat that he has been totally consent -- about the fact that he has been totally consistently, publicly and privately, in a position and that remains the position of his government to this day. so the suggestion, the statement made not just by former secretary of state rice, but many others, columnists and others, that somehow obama simply ignored this great opportunity is incorrect. i discussed it with them. and it was rejected. it is a matter public record. it was not possible to pursue, to pick up the negotiations where they left off as prime minister netanyahu said that he

would not accept them pierre >> that is one of the most perplexing episodes in the last three years. a demand was made to freeze settlement. but there did not seem to be a plan in place for the moment when netanyahu rejected the demand for settlement. there was a temporary moratorium, but the israelis never met the u.s. demand. you, at one point, hinted that there would be or conceivably could be punishment for not adhering to that demand. you brought up the issue of loan guarantees. but immediately the state department backed away from that. so why did the administration bill in publicly with a demand without having a plan b when netanyahu could not fulfil that? and the let me add one thing onto that. why were the settlement treated without understanding the limitations of netanyahu bees of the that demand? -- of netanyahu vis a vis that

demand? >> let me correct your interpretation of my statement. the only statement i made was on charlie rose. he asked me, if there was any thing the united states could do legally. i do not favor such a course of action. >> the state department did come back and say that he did not favor that course of action. >> no. my position was that i do not favor that. and so trying hard to respond earnestly to a journalist's question, i answered the question about the state of bill walsh and then i made clear that i -- about the state of law and then i made clear that i did not

support it. first, a settlement freeze -- every american administration that has been in office since 1967, president, secretary of state, administration -- they have opposed the policy and the actions of the government of israel with respect to settlements. every republican administration and every democratic administration. in the road map proposed by president bush, there is an expressive reference to a full settlement freeze. so president obama proposing a settlement freeze was not proposing anything new. it was a position taken by every prior american president, democrat or republican, over the preceding 40 years. secondly, the real mistake that

we made and for which we bear responsibility is that we did not make clear that the proposal was one in isolation to the israelis as opposed to the context of a request made in all three parties that were made by the same time -- the israelis, palestinians, and the other arabs. we did not make clear that none of those were preconditions to negotiations, but were in fact an effort to establish a context within which negotiations could occur and have a reasonable chance for success. recall if you will, as i said in my remarks, the gauze the

conflict had just ended. emotions were extraordinarily high. i travelled throughout the region several times before prime minister netanyahu took office. i met with leaders of 14 arab countries. almost without exception, there singular demand made right at the outset and with great emphasis was that there has to be a settlement freeze before there can be any consideration of discussions. think about it if you will what the reaction would have been if president obama had become the first american president not to favor a settlement freeze. >> the question -- >> let me finish my answer. we proposed this. we made demands of the arabs. the president said that the arabs were proud of the arab peace initiative. he mentioned it in his remarks when i was appointed. and it provides that, at the end

of seat -- and of the series of alents, there would be forme relationship. the request was to make steps at the same time that the israelis would have a freeze and the errors were taking the appropriate steps. we did not get the result we wanted. we did get a 10-month -- i do not want to call it a freeze -- a 10-month moratorium on new housing construction starts on the west bank. it was less than what we asked for, less than what the palestinians wanted, but was more than any government of israel had done on that subject.

and it was a significant action, which i believe the palestinians should have responded to by getting into the negotiations earlier. >> i am still confused. abbas said that it was obama that requested a settlement freeze. why was he under the impression that the settlement freeze was a precondition? why has he reacted the way he has? >> the statement was made in 2011. it was an inaccurate description of what occurred in 2009. it was a mistake in recollection of what occurred. when i went over to the region in january, said europe, and march 2009, -- january, fed

york, and march 2009, i met with february, and march 2009, i met with them and said that we needed a settlement freeze before a negotiation. >> do you think that is the root cause? >> there is not a root cause. it is an important part of the problem. >>routes if you can. there in the video. there is disagreement of territory. jerusalem is an emotional issue on both sides. more than any other complicated issue, borders and refugees and settlements are of palestinian issues.

jerusalem is a muslim issue. it doesn't just take the consent of the palestinians to make an agreement on jerusalem. it takes the consent and approval of many others in the world of islam. it is a highly emotional issue. i think it is a profound error to say this one is number one and that one is number two or three. they're all important. they'll have to be resolved. with respect to settlements, let me make a point, i negotiated with the israelis. the they would not fully freeze all settlement construction. they did agree to halt new housing construction sites for a period of 10 months. that was significant.

demand for the first time in 40 years when a building was finished, a wooden start. -- a new one wouldn't start. there would have come a point or there would have been no construction. every building would have been completed. when we negotiated that agreement and announced it, and the palestinians rejected it. and they described it as "worse than useless." that was the phrase they used. nine months later when they finally enter negotiations, and they said extension of the moratorium is indispensable. in the nine months, what was described as worse than useless was transformed into an indispensable item for

continuation. the real loss was that we did not get a full 10 months. we did not yet nine months. we got one month. we got less than one month. it was not enough time to gain traction and to have the parties interested in continuing the process. >> let me ask you about this. you talked at some length about the demographic challenge. he did not invoke the apartheid word. do you believe drew some of the road to becoming an apartheid state? de believe in the west bank, apartheid-like conditions prevail? >> the issue is complex enough without the use of inflammatory words and phrases. the only result is to create

aggravation and hostility. if you can say something two ways and one way is bound to antagonize your opponent and the other get your point across without antagonizing your opponent, why do you choose the inflammatory way if you really do want to accommodate the concerns? you do not settle conflicts by trying to figure out ways uncomplicated words to do it. i mean no offense to you. did they like controversy. they like sensationalism. >> when i was a senate majority leader, we were negotiating a very tough bill. i spent months negotiating with republicans on the bill. we're on the cusp of getting it done. the washington post ran a very tough story which focused on the 8% that we have not done.

when i complained to reporters, the reporter said "you have never seen a newspaper headline that reads '2 million commuters made it safely to work today' but you have read many that said 'six people were killed' " i described the situation in the way i found accurate and not arouse hostility. we all need to think about that. >> do you believe that in certain parts of the west bank on certain days a system of institutionalized discrimination against a certain ethnic group prevails? a want to know how far down the road you think israel has gone on this question. how reversible is what you have seen on the west bank?

>> that is the point. i think it is reversible. i do not believe that borders most difficult issues to solve. has been my please. they keep saying they want a freeze. the united states disagrees. they made that clear. president bush explicitly called for a freeze. it is not forthcoming. the way to deal with it i thought sensibly was to persuade the israelis to start new housing. during that time, use it to reach an agreement on borders which would say here is israel enters palestine. the israelis can build what they want. the palestinians can build what they want in palestine. then you do not have this issue.

i believe it can be resolved. >> if it is the u.s. position that settlements are either counterproductive or illegal, why do they not simply say to the israelis "we have assessed that you have spent $250 million this year on infrastructure for settlement so we will doctor that"? if you had that two years ago, do you think he would have gotten somewhere? >> we do have that ability under the law that exists. president bush was the last one to impose the application of that law. it created a deduction from the amount available to ensure israeli guarantees for the house. the israelis had not needed to make a claim on it. it has lost its potency.

it is symbolic now. it has no substantial effect. i do not believe it would have had any significant effect and altering the israeli activity. and all the time i was in the region, for many arabs, there is a simple solution. the united states cut off all funding. they will have to do what we want. for the israelis, it is also an easy solution. in relative terms, as many israelis have noted, the palestinians are much more dependent than israelis. the public perception is the contrary. in my view, i do not think that works. i do not think it works when you're dealing with this. you need a more positive case

of appealing to self-interest. i think self interest can be identified an appeal to a positive way. we did not succeed. let's face it. we have 10 presidents. >> let me ask you to a final questions. want to get iran also. i am going to in both speaker gingrich in this. have you met many leaders to believe that the israelis have a natural right to that part of palestine they currently possess? i read the palestinian press all the time. there is an overwhelming message

that the israelis have no legitimate right. how important, we understand what settlements due to the palestinian psychology, houle important is the -- how important is the jewish national quality to making peace? >> there were many others. i confess that i have never had a discussion in which we discuss precisely the natural right of israelis. i can tell you this. i believe they understand and accept it. they may not like it, but i think they accept the reality that israel is there. it is going to stay there. it is not going anywhere.

we want to have been over for dinner. in terms of less live in peace, you there be here. >> if you are a palestinian, would you accept 22% as your final permanent deal? >> the answer can only from palestinians. there are other issues that are so important. it must come from israelis. i was always conscious of the fact i spent four -- five years and on could northern ireland and to in the middle east. i was always conscious of the fact that when it was over i am going home and they are staying

here. they have to make those decisions. what we have to do is to help create the context in which to make those decisions. i believe that no other entity than the united states. it will help them accomplish at that task. >> as president obama like israel? >> i think he does. it implies more than the words themselves.

let me respond intelligence cooperation is the best it has ever been. they announced the largest ever exercise is focused on missile defense. that is the root problem. it can and a more rapid development of deployment. i have a very good relationship with israeli leaders. quite scary quickly if you can, if you have gotten to know the lead -- >> very quickly if you can, you've got to know the leaders. describe the most likable

characteristic of netanyahu. >> prime minister netanyahu is strong. he is consistent. he told me is very sincere about this. many many times when i met with prime minister netanyahu he said "i am sincere. i want peace." i believed him. president of boss -- abbas ask me the same thing. are we done? i think they're both the serious. that is not the question. everybody wants peace on their terms. the difficulty is achieving peace on terms that can be

acceptable to the other side. why would to get close to 100 approval? it be said to the palestinians and you want peace, people would say of course. the public is they're just like the public is here. they're able to hold and convey contradictory views at the same time. they say that we want peace. we wanted on our terms. the challenge and the task of leadership is to reconcile those two conflicting demands. we can do it in a way that can make it possible for the other side to accept it. >> it is relevant of the current

debate. when i was senate majority leader, the first president bush was in office. we have a terrific fight over the budget. we spent months and even went to the air force base and isolated ourselves in the hope that isolation went into is compromise. it did not. i used to go back to maine every weekend. there is a large crowd. i did not give speeches. i just a questions. he delivered a scathing denunciation of me, saying how there's they were at my behavior. it was too much fighting. why not me get down there and settle it with him? the crowd reacted with a huge

thunderous ovation endorsing his repudiation of me? water you guys arguing about? -- what are you guys are you about? he we get up and say you represent us. palestinians and israelis want peace. but they want to do it anyway this satisfy both. >> but we're talking about the way to go forward, on the question of settlements, it was a traumatic experiment.

will this be sustainable? which he bought 80,000 settlers. you have done some of the best reporting on it. what situation would have to obtain israelis to countenance political that is difficult. >> the figure that you cited is based upon an assumed percentage of exchanges. it might be higher. it might be lower. it depends on what the negotiated ingredient is. i am not an expert on the

subject. there are many of them in israel. as numerous studies made of the principal motivation that has brought different types of sellers to different places, it was a unilateral decision. there was no consultation or agreement with the palestinians with respect to it. there was no overarching agreement which the government of israel could point to and say here is what we got out of this. we do have to endorse some pain but there are significant benefits. there is nothing comparable then. i am not certain that it is really the kind of apples and oranges comparison. i do not think -- certainly i

said nothing. i do not think any responsible person would suggest that this would somehow be easy or anything other than extremely difficult with careful planning and and with a lot of assistance being provided by the united states and other supporters of israel. the gaza ork that lebanon example are relevant. in both of those cases, their unilateral without consultation. there is not in a demonstrable benefit i can tell you from my own experience elsewhere if you're going to ask a government in a very vibrant democratic society where everybody speaks in public if

you're going to ask people to undertake a very painful course of action, it is far more difficult to do it in the absence of an overarching program in which you can say we have to do a be. we're getting xyz in return. he have some give and take. >> this is really change in the last several years. you have a foreign minister that is your cannot dispatch to washington is no one will meet him. you have in the settlements of much of the officer that lives there. i want to press you on this. you are not talking about the israel 20 are 30 years ago. you're talking about asking an army to evacuate their own

parents. it is hard. you did deal with the army. it seems very hard to reverse this. >> i met with them many times. my view is that we have the right to choose our officials. they have a right to choose their officials. we are going to talk to whoever it is that they have. you say the israeli society is changing. of course it is changing. every society in every area changes. with someone that came to the united states not say is that

american politics changing? they decided to be static. the plo started as a secular society. it is, it has made some genes because of the dynamic changes. yes, it is more difficult. that is not a reason not to do things. if they are the right things to do it and if they provide an overall benefit to the society. that is the important part.

it is truly moving. 60 years is remarkable. if you believe in the security, you have to accept the reality that one in the more important things that you can do to ensure that security is to make peace with the palestinians. there are other issues in the region that he said he will get to. i am saying that it would be difficult but if the reward or sufficient, if the justification more enough to persuade the people that it was worth doing it, yet the possibility of getting it done. >> we apologize. we have time for two more questions. idyll many of you that i would give you a question for dick --

i told many of you you get a question so i will let him pick them and you can blame him. what i would just negotiate this. -- >> i will just negotiate this. >> i do not recall that my newspaper has denied the system said israel. i was there when you came in of august 2010. it was by september 2011. does mr. obama white the palestinians that he spoke very eloquently. he did not mention the palestinians. crack>> my answer is yes, i bele

that the president is fully committed at a palestinian state. yes said that many times. president bush said the same thing many times. i believe it is the united states policy. i do not accept the argument made by many in the region that the united states is incapable of serving as an arbiter our mediator for the intervening party. it is so biased. its history that the united states and israel are close. we are committed in to israel's security and existence behind secure borders. it is precisely because we believe that is real security

will be enhanced by an agreement that we think that there ought to be a palestinian state along with the belief that the palestinian people are entitled to self governance as are people everywhere, as our declaration of independence states. the united states or did i cannot speak for the president's -- i believe that he is fully committed to a palestinian state. >> looking ahead to the coming year, there are macro issues. can anything be done by the palestinians, israelis, and us

to stabilize the situation? i believe it is a possibility. >> i do believe that there can be steps taken. the party have been. it is a remarkable achievements. you look at what has gone on in the previous 30 years. the organizing and the funding and the training of the palestinian security forces, which has resulted and the establishment of stability and security where it did not exist, it has produced a secondary economic results in terms of the growth of the economy.

it has encouraged many of us to provide assistance to those are reluctant to do so. i think there are intermediate steps which could be taken which we proposed. not to get to complicated, as you know, the palestinian territories are divided and authority between areas that are administered entirely by the palestinians and those other entirely by israelis and those of mixed authority. one of the ones we have noticed is a capacity for self governance to extend palestinian authority in two areas --into areas b and c, particularly to

the extent it can exist and economic growth and development. economic factors is very presence. i think there is quite a bit more that can be done. there are numerous steps that can be taken to help prevent the outbreak that we very do not one want to have them. >> correct me if i am wrong, has netanyahu ever put down a proposal on the borders and security and anything? hour of pressure is that the palestinians have been quite forthcoming. if that is the case, why is that the case? will there ever be an american

bridging proposal that they will say is reasonable? >> mr. netanyahu did in fact substantive proposal on security. he did not make proposals on the other issues that seem mentioned. he assumes and anticipated this. it was my intention to encourage discussion on other agenda items that palestinians have prevented their views on.

because of the failure to extend .ts bi >> bridging proposals? >> we did not make any because there is not significant engagement. >> you have to have two pieces of land. >> there's the thing to bridge at the time. i just want to say we made it very clear to both sides that if it continues that we will be prepared when necessary and appropriate. it did not reach that stage for reasons i said earlier. >> you mentioned yourself that you spent five years of northern ireland's. you are clearly invested in this

and even more. was it a lack of support from the obama administration? >> you got caught off. >> i said to the president and secretary of state when they ask me to take this position, that i was willing and able to go. precisely because i have been there for five years. i said to the president i cannot do five years here. i cannot commit to you to even a full presidential term. he said what will you do? i committed to two years. going to do something unusual. we are right at the end. if you have a 32nd comment, the

go over i turn up the microphone. -- you have a 32n second comments and if you go over a turn off the microphone. as rapidly as you can, then we will finish. we will see if it works. >> i am actually lived in tel aviv and my concern is the shift in democratic values. there are a number of increasing bills. one of the biggest limitations and progressing are those that prevent a prime minister from taking a significant lead. are you concerned? >> when i was in the state department, there were 20,000

israeli settlers. people back then in cia and state department were writing the annexation that no good could come of this. the senior levels did not want to hear about it. it was a political bargaining chip. now have over five and a thousand settlers. the road map came from the main parts. palestinians did the security part. my comment is why do we think anybody is going to trust us in future? >> do you expect me to answer this question and 30 seconds? >> you touch quickly on is really isolation. can you put this in a bigger

range of? is a complicated? is it a priority? most of the leaders are no longer there. >> why should anybody trust the process and democracy and israel? >> you have 43 seconds. >> you get more time. >> thank you. >> you can instantly and in 30 seconds. -- intimidate me in 30 seconds. the first known as the arab spring initiative. -- first one was the arab spring initiative. it is human nature when there is turbulence and uncertainty and anxiety to pause, hesitates hunker down and not take any

dramatic steps. it is very clear that both the government of israel and the palestinian authority have been affected by that. it is a pillar of both of their policies with the government. that is gone. it is natural that they will want to pull back. it would be on natural otherwise. we have to understand that even as we encourage them to take steps, with respect to the arab spring, here are a few points. it takes a long time. i know all the press operates under a deadline. resolutions deny. in our own country, eight years elapsed. it was a much less complicated time than the current situation

in the middle east. secondly, there's almost an night and day in thinking. we said something has to do better. history is full of examples of very bad government. it will replace the other governments. arabs and air the springs to standards that no one else has met. we hope it turns out the right way. i think it will take a long time. there will be successes revolutions. it can follow up less severe. it i think some will turn out well. some will turn out not well. in terms of our policy. >> in fairness, i depose the

question. palestinians did there. they did it on the west bank. they have not done that in gaza. the israelis would dispute the premise of your question. i am not disagreeing with the. to get it ton able change. this deals with the issue. that is the way to get it done. i think it can be done. i do believe sincerely. i had a whole staff of proposed maps. you're one of the few that did not send me. i wish you would. at the complete my collection. it is what the border should be.

it can be done. i leave that to the israelis. it is a very difficult issue. i try very hard not to interpose myself into what our internal matters. let him have is a. >> [inaudible] >> i believe in democracy. i support democracy. i also think that the right to self-government means what it says. self-government. people decide their futures. this goes back to the arab spring. that is what is most powerful, and that it is entirely indigenous. a came from with in. it demonstrated a longing and

capacity that many thought and not exist or had been suppressed. it is not for the united states to tell the people of israel how to run their affairs. it is not for the united states to do this. we should encourage them. we should particularly praised democracy because they believe and it. in anthe end, they have to decide. >> no. let you go to dinner. >> thank you. >> just addressed to sides of the same question. what are the consequences for the middle east and for the peace process in particular of a nuclear arms enron? -- iran? what you think the results are of a pre-emptive strike of the united states to delay them from developing nuclear weapons that

strikes and answer them in reverse order. -- weapons? >> i will enter them in reverse order. there's no benefit to taking them off the table. i do not think anyone here is a proponent of a pre-emptive strike has so far made a sufficient case to justify it at this time. i think there are too many imponderables in terms of uncertainty about a sad is that they are in. or what the effect would be. secretary of defense gates who is respected in and out of the u.s. has said emphatically that we could not a share -- assure the full termination of their program. the best we could do is set it back. what about the next day? one thing we have found that it

is hard to get out of wars. you have to ask yourself what will happen on the second day? iran now possesses rockets. they have gone from liquid steel to solid fuel that can reach israel from iran. if you think that they are unstable enough to launch a possible first nuclear strike on israel, you certainly have to believe that they will launch a massive missile attack if they themselves were attack in retaliation, not nuclear but on mass. they could do tremendous damage. i do not think the cases were made. the one issue which you did not ask which i think it's also a sufficient importance and danger is if i rank it in nuclear- weapons not only will it be a huge destabilizing force in

region and be a setback for the peace project, it will make a harder.lt task it causes disintegration of the non-proliferation regime. there are now nine countries with nuclear weapons. they're trying to make it 10. there are many more in number with the capacity to do it. they have refrained from doing so. the break in the dam could be them getting weapons. what did they do? what would saudia arabia do? once that happened, it is not difficult to conceive, you discussed hal societies change. their societies where it has

been inconceivable that they would develop nuclear weapons even though they have the capacity that a movement would emerge on the grounds of we have to get our weapons. one of the things about nuclear- weapons is that in the countries that have nuclear weapons, most of the people think their country should have them. they just don't think other should. most americans think the united states should have them. did you ask questions of chinese are french or british, you get pretty much the same answer. it would be a matter of time. we would confront far more dangerous things than exist today. >> what a happy note. >> before i think senator mitchell and the others, i want

to encourage all of you who are watching on c-span and the c- span viewers for being with us to go to the web site at theatlantic.com. we all owe thanks to the designer of the project. i do not know where you are. thank you so much. you're here somewhere. i look forward to meeting you. i look forward to the team that brought this together. a big round of applause for senator mitchell. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> up next, tavis smiley plays a discussion on economic disparities in u.s. economy. then jonathan gruber talks about the health care system in his work on health care reform in massachusetts. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" david wasserman will talk about congressional redistricting in the supreme court. 22 states have passed right to work was. they have to decide whether to support unions or not. david madland and greg mourad will debate those laws. then we will talk to frank newport about independent voters in this election.

the conceive this "washington journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern. tomorrow morning, a look at the stability of pakistan and its relations with the u.s.. live coverage from the in situ begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern. -- from the hudson institute begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> there is an encore program. john lewis on "walking with the wind." and then dexter king on "growing up king >" also this weekend, new york kantorcorrespondent joe ddi att the first -- look ss

the first couple. >> should the government be responsible for releasing the broadcast airwaves of profanity and nudity? we will argue this on commission rules. to cannot so find other perspectives on the issue on line on our c-span video library in winning an argument of the second court of appeals case. >> we thought we knew what the rules might be. i do not know if i can go anywhere beyond the bewilderment position you have taken. if changes. we have no idea what the new changes would be. >> the indecency regulations have a safe harbor for programming after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m.. if they're under confusion about whether a particular broadcast would be fine and decent, it is simply to put the programming in

the safe one. >> we began now to match our policies with our ideas. then i believed it is possible that we will come to admire this country not simply because we were born here but because of the kind of grades and good land that you and i wanted to be and that together we have made. that is my reason for seeking the president's -- the presidency of the united states. >> with the back of 40 men he ran for the office and lost. go to our web site at c- span.org/thecontenders. >> the leadership of this nation has an immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore a proper respect for law and order

in this land and not just prior to election day either. >> when they get out of this wonderful university, they will have difficulty finding a job. we have to clean this mess up and leave this country in good shape and pass on the american dream to them. the to our web site. -- go to our web site. >> tavis smiley as a forum on the prosperity and poverty in america. it includes cornel west and michael moore. this is 2.5 hours. >> this promises to be a wonderful conversation about the one issue that i believe threatens to tear this country apart, the issue of poverty. the issue some not to not make its way onto the agenda.

we want to change that. to make sure that between now and november we do everything we can to push the issue of poverty higher up so we can get some traction on the conversation about what we're going to do to make poverty a priority and to figure out a plan not just to reduce poverty but to talk about eradicating poverty in this country over time. [applause] so i am delighted that we are back here again this year, as we were last year on the campus of george washington university. please think the president and campus for having us back this year. [applause] we conduct these annual symposia to get out of the studio in los angeles and get out into the country, into the nation to talk about issues that we think matter. o the nation to talk about issues that we think

matter. we are delighted that we are live on c-span. before i go any further, c-span has always been so gracious to cover these conversations now for -- i guess i lost count. 13 of 14 years we have been doing these annual symposium. please show your love for c-span for carrying us live to the nation tonight. [applause] c-span, we thank you. we appreciate it. i also want to welcome those listening live over radio in new york city on wbai. welcome to this conversation called "remaking america: from poverty to prosperity." delighted to have you turned in to this conversation, again, here on the campus of george washington university. i could say so much more about poverty, but i do not need to because to my left and my right, i am is surrounded by experts. not just experts, but i would say long distance runners on the issue of trying to reduce and eradicate poverty in this country, and i could not be more

delighted to be joined by an auguste panel. let me introduce them to you right now so we can jump straightaway into this conversation. she's the woman who coined the term, and i love it -- "green the ghetto." host of the peabody award winning program cassette and promised wan," please welcome my friend, majora carter. [applause] -- "the promised land." i am always happy to brag on her. years ago, she was one of the macarthur genius is, so we are glad to have a genius on the stage with us tonight. next is the best-selling author of more than a dozen books, including "nickeled and dimed" and "bait and switched," please welcome barbara ehrenreich.

he's a princeton professor, one of the nation's leading public intellectuals, who i'm honored to say as michael was on a national public radio program weekly, and i am also honored to be joined with him on our new book, "the rich and the rest of us: a party manifesto." please welcome dr. cornel west. -- a party manifesto." let's try this, what i said michael, you say moore. michael. >> moore. >> academy award winner michael moore, the author of "here comes trouble." [applause] dr. west and i had the honor today earlier to be alongside

this next person standing on either side of her as she made an announcement to the nation and the world that i think will literally turned the financial services industry on its head. it was that big a deal. the announcement that she made earlier today at the national press club. she is the author most recently kebab "the money class -- the author most recently of "the money class." nobody knows the difficulty of navigating poverty in this country better than the leading expert in the country. please welcome our friend, suze orman. [applause] she is the president and ceo of feeding america, a wonderful non-profit designed to combat the scourge of hunger and poverty in this country. please welcome our friend vicki b. escarra. finally, the president of the inside center on community

economic development and an editor of -- co-editor of "building help the community's." please welcome our friend from oakland, roger clay. [applause] we have here on c-span tonight to a half hours to talk about poverty. that might be the most time ever given to a conversation uninterrupted without commercials about poverty in this country, and i want to take advantage of every minute of it and jump right into the conversation. barber, i am honored you are here. i want to start with you because the numbers have been coming out so much of late. it lies in the last three or four months of 2011, it seemed that every other day, there was a new statistics coming out about how things really are. the most recent one, though, from the census bureau. our government finds that one in two americans is either in poverty or near poverty. i was no math major, but i think that means half the country.

if you add three categories together, the perennially poor, the newport -- the new poor, and talking poor, you're 150 million americans. i want to ask -- how did it get this bad? >> let me say about those numbers, there has been an idea for a long time that the poor are some special group, some special demographic, over there somewhere. we have to face, we are not talking about someone else. we are talking about almost half of america's struggling. that goes for the senior citizen who cannot make it on social security, the young person who cannot pay off student loan debt. it is the low-wage worker at walmart or something like that. it is a massive phenomenon. but we are going to a