y grandfather coming home years ago, and greeks on both sides are yelling and screaming about the then prime minister. who was the grandfather of the guy who was the prime minister a while back. almost the same point. socialism, capitalism. the same basic argument. we all want to greece to succeed and survive. but from an economic standpoint, greece is not the issue. greece is a couple hundred billion dollars of debt. but the exit of greece on its own is not the catastrophe. the catastrophe is the default of a priest before you have a fire wall for italy and spain. there's a likelihood the will run into issues. they do not have the wherewithal. they need the money. they have central banks but they cannot print the euro which puts them in a difficult position.

most of it went to germany and they deposited into the bundesbank and they had to lend it back to the italian and spanish central banks. the problem has been widely centralized. to solve europe, you need three things. need to stop the banking crisis in spain. you need a real fiscal union. it was a minority of you said it would not work years ago. and they need to do it soon. there were really good reasons for the union. one was political. hundreds of millions of people have died in multiple wars. you could say it was a good objective to have a political union. the second was the economic union. they looked at the united

states and thought if they have a common market, same rules and regulations that it would be a huge boost to the economy. those two reasons still exist. i think they will still model through because the alternative is potentially so bad. i could be wrong. you will see good news, bad news. it will work -- it will not work. they cannot do it all at once. they have the will. the politicians say there is no plan be. -- plan b. >> let's just keep globetrotting for second. the international financial meetings in japan. one thing coming out is the imf predictions for the slowdown in global economic growth. alcoa announced this morning the drop-off of global demand for

aluminum which is sending an indicator. are you seeing the same thing in your business operations? you are a truly international institutions. are using a sign a slowdown? >> not quite like that. europe is in a mild recession. the government is going to spend 50% of the money. that will not go down. asia is a slower but it is nothing mystical or different than your read about. united states is fundamentally a stronger than people think, in my opinion. in latin america, some are better and some are slower. >> asia use same syncline about. -- you seem sanguine. >> this in my opinion, but i.

they will meet their objective of 7%-8% higher. they are doing this to avoid social unrest and change the infrastructure. it change will be coming and it will be smoothed and continue to form the policies of the government. they have $3 trillion in reserve and a lot of capabilities to maintain growth. they did that that month, literally. they knew what they want to accomplish. i do not think i can do that 10 years from now. they're not building a lot of bridges to nowhere. i think it will work in the immediate term. >> there's a lot of talk about africa. in latin america, we have seen signs of pretty robust growth.

>> we're opening grove -- stores and we are in there on the ground. we go there for the multinational clients. where they go, we go. , is the same with latin america. -- it is the same with latin america. we will be making consistent investments. we need a better job with monetary policy. >> we are not doing as well as

we should in the united states, so let's turn this inward. how much are you planning for the fiscal cliff? >> that's the big deal. when the eurozone crisis happens, we spend $50-$100 million preparing. be visible club does not quite that because it is more critical double what the outcome will be. we have a fiscal cliff command center, a war room. we understand all of it and we will be prepared. jpmorgan will survive its fiscal cliff. i just think it's terrible policy to allow it to get close. is it bad that there's just so much gdp? there are always potential outcomes and i would defy anyone to ask for more.

let's see. let's try to avoid that. it will not happen midnight on december 31st. they want to start to make decisions with the margin. don't hire, don't build, wait an d see. that's a recession. >> do you agree that it is less of a cliff and more of a slope? >> probably, yeah. conduct an omnibus deal. they will kick the can further down the road. how worried are you that the united states cannot do something on the order of $4 trillion over a decade kind of comprehensive deal. how worried are you that suddenly this is red hot because

it eventually moves across the united states. >> it is assured, the question is when and how. it will happen. it is a matter of time. the united states cannot borrow indefinitely. country after country after country just thought they could get away because we're the military power of the world. why would you take the choice of wait and see? it could enhance growth and jobs. i believe, had simpson-bowles been done, we would be booming. america knows the way. we do not have the will.

a more efficient tax system, more certainty. i think we would have been booming. it's doable, but we need the leaders saying we're going to do it. >> when you think of something like simpson-bowles, do you think it needs spending reform, tax increases? >> we can all sit here. i think it is 21% and then you have an efficient tax system. it is a far more efficient tax system so it gets this huge waste, this coefficient cost, not a bad tax system, a legal system, uncertainty. you would have had better growth. i'd think it was four to one, or whatever it was, but close

enough would have been good enough. it does not have to be exactly right. once. starting a down, it would pay for a lot. >> the united states has been now growing at roughly half of what you might call the modern historic rate of economic growth. we're growing in fiscal 2002, give or take. if you were advising the next president, be it obama or romney, to say publicly here are the few things we should do in order to generate economic growth, one would obviously be some kind of comprehensive budget deal, but what else would be the -- on the jamie dimon list? >> america is a great country. the president should recognize one thing for certain. i think this attitude is just not true.

we of the best military on the planet and we will four years. we have the most transparent capital markets in spite of what happened. investment, of capital, private equity. we have among the best businesses on the planet, small, medium, and large. i'm not talking about steve jobs. i'm talking about all around the factory line. we need to invest more in capital equipment. i think we have a slight polluted system at this point. transparent capital markets in spite of what happened. investment, of capital, private equity. we have among the best businesses on the planet, small, medium, and large. i'm not talking about steve jobs. i'm talking about all around the factory line. we need to invest more in

capital equipment. i think we have a slight polluted system at this point. transparent capital markets in spite of what happened. the work ethic is still there. this is still in the time and the world. it would be here. we need to get beyond this. my god, the most profitable energy. god is looking down giving us and saying, "i hope you get this one right." we have a problem. we need to diagnose the problem. housing is turning. why are really growing at 2%? this one i cannot prove. europe is ok. there is a huge wet blanket out here. to me, as all the uncertainty around taxes, policy, fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling fiasco. we have this constant anti- business feeling. wherever i go, i have business people say the environment is

terrible. it's not just banks. we have done this to ourselves. we shot ourselves in the foot. get rid of the wet blanket and we will take off. there was a great article that was reprinted in "the wall street journal" giving president-elect ronald reagan some advice. tell the same positive story over and over and will turn. yet to believe in it. america usually will do the right thing after it has exhausted all other possibilities and i hope we do. if you think washington and business can go to work, the collaboration's, we should have a collaboration. we would double the other and worked round-the-clock but now

and has became a war. dodd-frank, health care, so we re-litigate. we should get it right the first time and move on but we did not. >> to the extent there has been a marked absence of collaboration or friction between the worlds of politics and business, you but the lion's share on the political side? >> i would put more on the political side. everyone i know is coming down and asking what they can do for help. it surprised me when someone asked a question, do you want universal health care pro- american citizens, 80% say yes. they wanted done right a certain way, but there was a huge effort to pull together to make it work.

it didn't happen. you know politics far better than i do. it didn't happen. it still could, so let's do it again. let's try again. we know it to ourselves to the best we can. >> let me put this out there for regulatory concerns. there is something of potential in the pendulum of over regulation. there is one school of thought that it has gone too far, the other that it has not gone far enough. >> we have a lot of people with deep opinions and little knowledge. they find a fact to justify their thought. that's not how you do good policy. we need in regulation in america. good regulation is a good thing. good does not mean more or less.

it means good. you cannot drink when you drive. 65 miles per hour on the highway. we created such confusion over jurisdictions. no one would adjudicate. when people to commit fraud, they make mistakes and you are attacked by 17 different agencies as opposed to the only ones responsible. really good possible -- policy, clarity. what they're saying is that they need more capital. ok. fine. that makes sense. let's have the debate and look at the facts. i support a lot of capital and liquidity, but at one point it will go too far. some of these are laws written in basel. they are written for other people and other purposes. they say we have to have a

common ground and make it fair for everyone. i agree with that concept except that it's bad for america. if we're not going to do it, the rest of the world cannot make us. >> what about the poster issue of proprietary trading, the volcker rule, all of that? where did you come out on that? >> after dodd-frank, the blueprint, the white paper, and never went through in their two cents, i would argue that was completely unnecessary. it was not the problem. we supported a lot of dodd- frank. you are either for or against it. there are like 2000 things in dodd-frank. the volcker rule had anything to

do with the crisis. it is something that he felt deeply about. keep trading safe for big financial companies? i agree. we need to get rid of too big to fail. i agree with the intent. we do not do any crop trading. we have the widest, deepest, most transparent capital market in the world. that's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. the struggle is trying to find how you restrict market-making. you almost cannot. the laws are so vague that it's hard to determine. i just hope we write this in a way that we end up with the widest, deepest, most transparent capital markets in the world. the regulators came out with their 180 things from around the

world. asset managers, central banks, governments -- let's just get it right. at one point, there needs to be a dialogue. >> should most regulation come from the outside door should firms have a large role in self policing? >> regulation should be formed and designed with the practitioners, too. we're in this crisis because they were kept out of the process. that's kind of a mistake. keep the doctors out. of course banks make mistakes. banks should be punished. it would be better to sit down and have the conversations to improve the system and set of people just dumping 5000 pages of rules to try to get what they need.

in our great economic ecosystem, there are all different types of entities, big banks. we bank in 50 countries. that's why we're here. we do a lot of things that people cannot do. some of these rules are terrible for small banks. who is the biggest banker of the banks? and jpmorgan. >> mentioned to been to fail. there is some thought that you shouldn't be broken up. how does one deal with that? other than people having tremendous faith in you and your successors, how do we deal with the problem that if jpmorgan ever made an institution- threatening mistake that it could be fixed? >> this has nothing to do with

glass-steagall. hedge funds had problems early on. mortgage brokers, indymac, wamu. lehman, bear stearns, aig, and the biggest financial concerns -- fannie mae and freddie mac. it was not a glass-steagall foundation. you should never pay if jpmorgan fails. konk >> it should be called minimally damaging issues for big, dumb and banks. >> i think it should be called bankruptcy. i think they recommended chapter 14.

it is like a hospital and it goes bankrupt. in a financial company, you just need the money running through the system. it could be done. there was quite a success for the fdic. the ways you want to structure it legally is to say if jpmorgan starts to fail and they filed chapter 14, here's what happens. yet freeholders and the unsecured holders pay everything. jpmorgan has $400 billion of unsecured debt. there's no way we will lose that. the citizens never pay. when that happens, all directions are fired and the name is buried forever. we remember why it should not happen. it should not hurt the economy

and stuff like that. i agree. those, we should be doing. >> the reason these companies get bigger as we forfeit things to clients like better, faster, cheaper. that's capitalism. you buy it because you like it. you go to wal-mart because you like the price. many go to a public trading desk, you like the price. nothing wrong with that. if we did not have productivity, we would be out on a heard hunting buffalo. there are some negatives to it. sometimes things don't survive, but look what happens over hundreds of years. it's a wonderful, beautiful thing. we have to get rid of too big to fail. dodd frank has the elements of that in there.

it lets the elements compete in the marketplace. >> several months ago, you had the derivatives experience subject in part and there is the profile. what is different about risk- management now? if you will, what are the lessons learned and changes implemented? >> this co., jpmorgan chase went through 2006-2012 and never lost money in a quarter. we did not need tarp. where were there for a lot of people who were not. hospitals, schools, businesses. we bought bear stearns at the request of the government and we bought washington mutual for ourselves at a tremendous cost that we did not pass on to other banks. we are pretty disciplined risktakers.

there is a gap in the line. we screwed up. that quarter we made $5 billion. it was a stupid error. it's kind of embarrassing, personally. it will not sink our ship. we have $150 billion in capital. this will be a third year in a row to set a record year and that's our job. if an airplane crashes, do we stop flying all planes? if a drug does not work? the stock drug manufacturing? you have to be really careful about drawing conclusions which are not proper. it is a shareholder mistake that did not cost anybody money.

that gap does not exist most other places and there were lessons learned. businesses make mistakes, they learn from it, and they get better. that is what business is. only when i come to washington to people act like making a mistake should never happen. of course it happens. all academics say this is somehow not allowed. [laughter] >> i would love to take that last comment personally. up at this open it point? i have one or two in the and i want to close with. wait for a microphone and let us know your name and affiliation. the gentleman there next to the microphone? yes? >> father andrew from a

monastery. the reported the roman catholic church spent $171.60 in 2010 and $18 billion was financed through tax and municipal bond purchases. what is jpmorgan doing to help faith-based organizations meet our capital needs over the long term? right now is a good climate for us. if we want to borrow now and pay it over time, we are 16 million -- 1600 years old. >> how much do you want to borrow? [laughter] >> we banquet governments, non- profits, hospitals, churches. i would be happy to share this with you. we advise people. you have to be very careful in the lending business.

they want to shell -- so you what ever you have cash for. they will say they will not do it and it's not good for you either. it is like selling too much liquor to someone. send me an e-mail and i will give you all the information you need. >> take one minute to talk about this large organization with an enormous profit. what is your sense of corporate responsibility? what does jpmorgan deciding -- decide for itself? >> my job is to build a healthy, vibrant company. it is no different than the

corner store that participates in the community to help the little league or the local church to give people summer jobs, some philanthropies sometimes, and we do that everywhere. we do almost $200 million per year. corporate responsibility around the environment. we go into lots of cities and we help them grow economically to create jobs, help the environment. we do a tremendous amount for education and veterans. we have hired -- thank you, veterans -- 4800 veterans in teh last 18 months or so. 17 companies have hired 70,000 veterans. a lot of people of taare talkin.

we're doing. we try to participate. healthy, vibrant company makes all this possible. with a dying company, none of this is possible. if i did not make the customers happy, there is no anything else. i have never separated them. in that, we will be making mistakes. that may go back to this issue one more time. we have something like $15 billion exposure to hedging and stuff like that. you could easily tell me to get that down.

we have been in spain for over 100 years. if you are italy, how would you feel it jpmorgan cuts and runs? do not be a fair weather friend. be here in good times and bad for me. just like that, things go bad. everyone knew that italy and spain would go bad. how could you not know? you made a decision. it may be the wrong decision. this is deliberate. we hope to still be doing business there in 50 years. we try to moderate it, but we need to be good corporate citizens. i'm lucky. i stand on the shoulders of those who have come before. the knowledge that jpmorgan has

in the relationship in these countries, they go back. we cannot cut and run. >> let's go to the front row here. >> mr. dimon, when you look at jpmorgan today, what is the difference? i would like you to comment on the issue of oversight. you made a persuasive argument, but i have not heard you use the word "oversight." >> we have boards, regulators, and more oversight. we do the same thing for consumers and businesses. we lend the money. we do not lend directly, but

it's almost the same period a someone says they want to borrow money for that project, we might say the cheapest route is a bank loan and then there are derivatives. but most of the more interest rates aror forex. we moved something like $5-$10 trillion per day for corporations around the world. we do this through different currencies, countries to pay your vendors. savings account, checking account, mortgages, loans, oil. this will not change. you'll still have financial and vice and will still be doing it.

they're doing their around independent view of this fiasco. inside jpmorgan chase, every business has a brisk committee. one dozen lawyers, 1500 compliance officers. it is huge. we make markets in other countries and we buy and sell a couple trillion dollars per day. you can come to us in london or wherever and buy bonds.

what you want from us? great research and a great price. we are a store. me sell you that. it's a little riskier than that because it's a little more volatile business. we do a great job for you. we give you great price, service, and that's why we get your business. we hope to continue to do that. this is integral to the fact that ibm could call us right now and raise this in hours. they are directly related. we do research. they're really like that. >> we will scurry about with the microphones. >> i may risk and performance manager.

-- i am a risk manager. what makes good regulation? why did this not live up to the hope that it would keep banks from getting in trouble operating between the mortgage market and the securitization markets? that was the hope when it was passed after the crisis and it could be a good test case because it was a combination of things, as i recall. at least one novel idea that a number of bankers thought was interesting is that they would come in before the equity is entirely gone so that they are not tempted to take big risks. why did not not help forestall the latest financial crisis? >> the financial crisis is a little more complex. too much leverage in the system

and there's too much leverage everywhere. that is no acquisition of europe. that is the regime they operated under for 30 years. this will cost you $200 billion, by the way. we should be asking questions like that. what can we do better? this would adjudicate and assigned responsibility to problems and to the people responsible for it. i believe in transparency. i believe in clearinghouses.

a clearing house does not eliminate risks. it's standardizes it. >> all the way in the back. underhill. now there's a civil lawsuit for bear stearns related to fraud, do you regrets participating buying bear stearns in 2008? what did yo umiu miss when you said it would not be material. >> we were asked to buy bear stearns. we did them a favor. let's get this right.

we have the capability and capital to do due diligence. the one thing i was terrified about was there were all these lawsuits and there would be no money, no action. there would be no money. the second we bought it, we knew we were buying this as it would play out. knowing what i know today, it's really close. but they called me in again to do something like that, i could not. my board would not let me. i did get a letter from one of the senior regulators that said, please take into consideration when you want to come after arrests down the road for something bear stearns did that jpmorgan was asked to do this by the federal government.

there are some great people and some terrible things. i forgot the exact number, but we have lost $5-$10 billion on bear stearns and i would put that in the unfair category. i'm a big boy. we will survive. >> the financing the fed did was mortgages. we kept the non-investment grade mortgages. we borrowed more, became more leveraged. if you hold on to these things that you got for 0%, you'll get your money back.

[laughter] next time i will. >> are you worried that in the course of your career inflation will become issue number one for you? >> we might move to 1.75%, 2%. i'm lori about 5% or 10%. i do not see that happening right away. the fed has done a magnificent job. qe1, qe2, qe3, so far. do you know what teh financial

assets of the nation are? $80 trillion. people have mention argentina, the weimar republic. there was gdp every year in financial assets. things are in pretty sound shape. there's a lot of fiscal monetary stimulation. we think corporate america has $1.50 trillion too much cash. for consumers, i would say you are all holding on the cash because you were scared. here is the best case-worst case scenario. we grow up 4% capitalization goes up, inflation goes to 3.5%. the 10-year rate goes to 5%?

that would be great. it's possible. the worst is skyflation. we've had that before in this country. what we need now is good fiscal policy. you have to get on board for that. that is what will kill this thing. we need to get our act together controlling our fiscal deficit in the future. >> i assume you favor a change in corporate taxation? >> the current system does not work. if they say -- prove it. it's hard to prove that in real time. today that it's different this time? five or six bad examples is because of bad policy. ben bernanke, jr., will write a

book down the road sign we could have made this better. one thing is taxation. we are training immigrants and sending them back from. some companies have to invest here. if your building a semiconductor plant, a data center, a research center, it does not have to be here. a lot of it can be made over there because taxes are lower. it makes their returns 30%-40% higher. that's economics. separate morality from economics. set up the economic system that is conduve to growth, conducive to jobs, conducive to g.d.p. and then we will have a conversation. i do not mind paying 36.9% in taxes or of my capital gains

separate 20%. i want a society getting more economical. do not mess up the economic engine making this possible. you can talk to business people all day long and its anecdotal. we are driving capital and brains overseas. the problem with that, by the way, is they are sending engineers, or randy, and other people over there. some may stay -- sending engineers, research and development over there. >> since the crisis, i have had numerous conversations with people who might consider very intelligent will say something like this to me. we need to return glass-steagall by instituting the volcker rule. or we need to restrict banks from taking any positions in a variety of securities that are their bread-and-butter. when i tell them they cannot

underwrite without breaking the markets, it passes over their heads. it seems to me the industry itself, maybe because of the political dense, and they could do a better job explaining what their business is and what you are required to do to make the business work for the customer. what do you think? >> obviously want to do a better job. everyone is talking about turning that trust and doing a better job explaining these things. a lot of people say things they just do not understand. i did not realize this, and you can punish me for this, too, when they said all of the banks failed and bailed out, the game was over. that was it.

it was predicate it on those two lies. jpmorgan is an important business. there were not going to fail. they did not need tarp to succeed. they're going to make loans and do what they had to do for america. on not going to give up. i love this country so much. that's why i do things like this. that is why i want transparent capital markets. capital markets. what is market-making? as market making in number?

ss grass -- [laughter] is market making in everything? there are markets in china, russia, cuba. if they can sell you goods for a better price over there, that's what people do. it's not like there is a morality around that. we are teaching people all the wrong things. thanks to technology reform, they should be fixed. we should be punished for what we did wrong. the punishment should fit the crime so we can move on. they feel like it was old testament justice. including the bank that failed, they have given a lot of money. there is some truth to that. i cannot make up what they did and did not do.

there were people who destroyed the company's and virtually brought this down to its knees. it causes me off, too. >> just to defend the old testament for a second. the idea was that the punishment should not exceed the crime, so that was a progressive innovation at the time. [laughter] >> i did not think of it that way, but ok. >> about four years ago, the chief security officer told us there had been up to 1 million attempted intrusions', cyber intrusions', in one day. how concerned are you about the cyber threat, cyber crimes, and cyber terrorism? >> we get hundreds of thousands a day. we have these major security centers and we work with big government around the world to protect ourselves.

they're flooding the lines and a lot of these are coming from iran. then we say, you cannot get through. they're not getting inside the computers, but we spend a tremendous amount of time and effort on cyber security. we are in favor of the new cyber security laws, we think they should be done in collaboration, not these old laws that are set up saying, you should be cyber secure or we will come after you. the cia, and they say, department of defense, they know when we are attacked the border and we do not. we're going up the work together to protect the american public's we can stop cyber crime. it's a big deal. it's going to get worse. computers in 10 years will be 100,000 times faster. we're going to work on that in every way, shape, and form.

banks are pretty good at this. we have been doing in a long time. we have to really stay in front of it. those of you who worry about it, it does not only come over the this -- the internet. think about when they join your company from the inside. that's where we're going to get. >> thank you for reassuring point. [laughter] the young lady in the second to last rolw. >> that is why you have fire walls to prevent everyone getting to all of these systems. >> many of the roles coming out of dodd frank have yet to be written. how much of an impact is this having under business? >> it the look at this quarter, we will release earnings on

friday, it's pretty good. small business loans are up, 12 straight months. middle-market loans are up. market shares are up. trades have been ok. mortgage loans are up. mortgage problems are coming down. it's actually pretty good. i think 25% of dodd frank has been done. it's really hard for me to calculate a number. it is costing us $1 billion in overhead at one point. a lot of these rules are contradictory, overlapping. all i want is at one point this it down and have a conversation about what we need for safety and what is creating and unnecessary burden? i would not want to hurt community banks. they have a great loan life.

i just think we need cooperation to get this done. it's not going to be done properly if we always fight. the most important -- capital and liquidity. and there are 398 other rules. we're trying to work with everyone and accommodate. we have no choice. we are going to do it and we will do it in a way that is fair and levels the law. that is what we will do. they get mad when i comments at all. we will meet the terms we're required to me. another conversation is that jpmorgan will be fine a matter what. believe me. don't worry about jpmorgan. i'm worried about the country. we should do these things right for the future of america, not jpmorgan.

>> i apologize in advance for the many people with their hands up. demand is exceeding supply. >> i am garrett mitchell and i write the mitchell report. i want to ask you a too big to fail question but this is not about jpmorgan chase or barclays. it's about the u.s. and china. china is on the brink of a major change in its leadership. it has written its own prescription for new economic directions, which they know they have to initiate or they will fall off the cliff. we may or may not be looking at a major change in leadership in this country, but we are looking at the fiscal cliff. i'm wondering from your perspective, as someone who does business all around the world and despite your protestations about not knowing much about politics, how you assess the relative chances of success for

america dealing in the short term with its fiscal cliff and the longer term with its ability to get some semblance of good governance and with the chinese to be able to do the same and make changes in their economy so that the two largest economies and policies in the world will help things stay online. >> china has huge issues they have to deal with. democracy starts as white men over a certain age who own property. every society creates a middle- class and has some form of democracy over time. it's hard. losing control, social unrest, etc. think about the financial system. it's not the most important

thing, but it is where investors of all types, pension funds, individuals meet to invest in projects, companies, startups, ventures, and they cannot macro- manage down the road. as the united states, we should help them do that. it is in our interest that they grow peacefully to take care of their 1.3 billion people. we have to have a strategic dialogue. it's the right thing to do. america will have -- american might is based upon three things. it is the foundation of all other things, all jobs, all buildings, and the hoover dam. that was or taxpayer money. the know-how came out of the american business.

o build the space ships that went to the moon it? it was a predecessor of boeing. -- who built teh ships? >> economic and military are directly related. it will be going for quite a long time. freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law. the think we should forget that. china looks at america and they look at how lucky we are to have these businesses. they have a much tougher situation. i think we should help them to make sure we are strong. we should never give up our strengths -- economic, military, and more. >> thank you very much. i appreciated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> former treasury secretary larry summers talks about long- term economic policy. live coverage from the center for american progress starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span2. >> look at what president obama did on the budget -- nothing expect borrow and spend. the president's advocation of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in our country's history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion debt reduction plan over the next 10 years -- $4 trillion. we have already passed $1 trillion of it. beatty's and gentlemen, these guys vote against everything. i really mean it. -- ladies and gentleman, they vote against everything.

they don't like our plan? what's your plan. >> tonight, paul brian and joe biden will face off in their only debate from kentucky. -- paul brian and joe biden face off. there are two ways to watch the debate at 9:00, both candidates on screen and the multi-camera version on c-span2. all live coverage on c-span, c- span radio, and online at c- span.org. >> coming up today on c-span, "washington journal" looking ahead to tonight's vice presidential debate. at 10:00, jeremy stein talks about monetary policy. later at 1:00 p.m. eastern, gloria steinem and other founding members of "ms >" celebrating -- "ms."