exclusive web extras, we hope to see you back here tomorrow we'll talk to ted udall, jeffrey toobin, and tad devine. have a great night. >> eliot: goods evening, i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." mitt romney looks to push the reset button on his staggering campaign with his poll numbers showing him down 5 to 7 points in key states like ohio, florida, and ed gillispie said that he would offer something new--specifics. what a concept. >> what we have found is that people want to hear a little bit more of that, not just to say that we have a plan to do t but here's what is in that plan. >> eliot: shocking idea. with that in mind, the

republican contender spoke to the national hispanic chamber of commerce about immigration policy. >> i will pursue permanent immigration reform and start by ensuring those who serve in our military have the opportunity to become legal permanent residents in the country that they fought to defend. >> eliot: but will likely to take more than that to swing voters into that column. 68% of latino voters favor the president. just 26% support mitt romney. last month's month was to get 30%, serve points better than john mccain managed in 2008. it doesn't seem likely. meanwhile, suffering a severe bout of finger pointing. in romney's foreign policy gaffe following the mob assault in libya. following an exclusive story

stewart stevens is taking internal heat for the problems, and a campaign structure that has him acting as chief strategist speechwriter all at once. and taking heat about president's supporters earlier this year at a private fundraiser released today on the internet by mother jones. >> eliot: perhaps romney doesn't think that the 47% of the american people that he derides includes any of the people he says he wants to help in the latest ad. >> my plan is to help the middle class. trade has to work for america. that means crackdown on cheaters like china. >> eliot: at issue president obama tried to take away from romney in an ohio campaign

speech. >> obama: today, launching a new action against china. this one against illegal subsidies that encourage companies to ship auto parts manufacturing jobs overseas. we're going to stop it. it is not right. it is the against the rules and we will not let it stand. >> eliot: romney is also repeat lid attacked the president on another key foreign policy challenge, iran's nuclear program, and the threat of an iranian atomic bomb. susan rice insisted that the president's policy is working. >> what is clear iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and iran is more isolated than ever internationally. >> eliot: yet there was a voice of skepticism. israeli employment called to establish red lines for iran's nuclear program. netanyahu insisted despite his long-time friendship with mitt romney he was not meddling with

american politics. >> i'm not going to be drawn into the american election. what is driving my statement not the american calendar but the iranic nuclear calendar. >> eliot: for what appears to be more of the bad case of the staggers i'm joining by ginger gibson and richard grinell former director of communications and public diplomacy while he worked with for united nations ambassadors under george w. bush. thank you for joining us tonight tonight. >> sure. >> eliot: ginger, let me begin with you. you're the one who is a pure journalist, is the media seeing blood in the water and like piranha, they're circling the campaign and picking it up or is it fair to go after stevens. >> fracture in the romney campaign seems to be rise together surface unhappiness looking at the latest poll numbers which are not showing

good numbers for mitt romney seem to be bringing disagreements out in the open. any time reporters get a sense of those finger-pointing incidents in the campaign they're going to jump. stu stevens who place a number of roles in the campaign is overstretched and making bad calls. there is unhappiness in the way that romney's speech, and in campaigning, a good use of his time. >> eliot: you've worked with romney. it does seem that for them to announce today, gee, we have a great idea, we're going to give you specifics guys, why have you been? the public has been thirsting to know what you believe. there seems to be something wrong in their decision process. >> i hope you feel that way

about president obama announcing his getting tough on china today. september 17th, three and a half years into his administration he's making the same type of announcement and he's president of the united states. i think politico does a good job, but they have this story a couple of weeks ago that there were internal fighting in the obama campaign, now they came out with this one. if it was so bad why wasn't there on the record quotes? everything was anonymous quotes. we see this as typical campaigns like to do this. there is no question that i think that the romney campaign has to do something different. the polls are showing that we're down. i don't always trust polls but i sense that we are down now. the sitting president is a great campaigner. i think he's a terrible governor, but he's a very good campaigner. i think they're going to have to adjust and do something new. >> eliot: rick, i got credit where credit is due. your point about the president

aboutand his record on china is right. but let's challenge the motivation, that's something that i'm hesitant to do but the timing weighs heavily on your point. the romney campaign has to do something different. one poll is not a trend but the--all the polls together show you to be down significantly in the swing states. is this a campaign that is geared more towards persuasion where you get swing votes or passion and you hope for a big turn out among those who are already with him. >> i have to admit i don't know what that strategy is going to be, but i do know we have a lot of money in the romney campaign and we have 50 days out. i feel good about where we are. we have enough money to get the message out, and we have excitement. the democrats started early on saying that the republicans weren't excited about mitt romney, and i don't think that's true. whether it's really excited to

defeat obama or really excited for romney, i can't tell the difference at this point. we have a sense that romney is our guy and he's going to carry us through. so there is an excitement about trying to defeat obama and putting mitt romney in the white house. >> eliot: ginger, you were out there on the trail. do you get a sense of that excitement. i know what it's like to be on the campaign when there is genuine spirit in the audience. do you get a sense that mitt romney is generating that passion right now or do you get a sense it's lethargic. he's our guy and he'll be there until november, but he won't make it. >> is passion, but is it for mitt romney or against barack obama. he vows to repeal the obama healthcare act. it seems that most people are jazzed up about getting rid of obama. but when you ask about mitt romney specifically, scars from the primary still remain and

people are apprehensive about it. but his base see him as the better alternative. >> eliot: the base that's appeal appealing to does probably agree with him. that sound byte where he derides the 40% who depend on government. basically saying if you're voting for barack obama you're there because you want the walk out. that might be the ethos that he pervades out in the public. am eye attributing something to him that really isn't there? >> cenk: this video that came out could cause problems for mitt romney talking about the 47% that he says are dependent upon government and therefore not going to vote for him. he seems to be lumping a large group of people's statistics about how much of the country pays income taxes together, and assuming they're not all for him. as someone who talks to people at romney's rallies, it's clear that his supporters cross the income lines and that president

obama's supporters cross income lines. this video is one that could cause him headaches especially as he tries to respond to criticisms that he's out of touch with the middle class voters and doesn't understand their problems. >> eliot: it's one of the great cannards that the public does not pay taxes but they pay property taxes sales taxes they may not pay the income. putting aside the attacks i contribute that as being an error in judgment. >> as long as i can say i don't think it's a gaffe. >> eliot: what would he be doing differently now with respect to libya and egypt. specifically. you've been there. you've been at the u.n. you know how to balance and it's a delicate proposition. >> i don't think it's as delicate as you think it is. the islamists have been on a march for a very long time. we've seen it in yemen sir

gentleman rightsyria, egypt, and now we see them taking out our u.s. ambassador in libya. this is not because of a movie. the movie is an excuse. this happened on 9/11. this is a serious developing situation that has been developing for four to nine months dependent depending on which country you're looking at. mitt romney as president would have already--take syria 18 months ago would have been working covertly to figure out who the good guys are help them give them arms, organize them. we're not talking about putting u.s. troops there. that's always something that the liberals like to push on us, that we want war. no republican wants war. that's a fact. i don't think mitt romney is going to be committing u.s. troops very quickly. >> eliot: rick let me interrupt, time is short. i don't disagree with you about syria. it could be that the administration is already doing

that at a covert level. we wouldn't know but i think there has been a fair bit of bipartisan criticism that there should have been more intervention when it comes to syria. but libya leading the islamic party to defeat, yes there has been a horrific outbreak but the government in libya is cooperative even mohammed marsi is now being contributive. what is specifically in egypt would mitt romney do differently. >> you organize more. you try to identify the goodbye the good guys and you don't take a step back. what we've had from this administration they're not doing anything. they're not trying to be part of the leadership. what i mean by that you've got to be using the bully pulpit, calling out the president like when in libya when the situation was getting out of control and in egypt when it was getting out

of control why didn't the president speak out immediately? why is he waiting 15 hours? those are the types of things that you would see mitt romney do immediately, try to put pressure on these allies, and try to make sure that they're doing more than just sitting back and watching events unfold. >> eliot: rick, i hear you. i'm not persuaded there is any gaffe between what your gap--any gap between what the white house is doing and what you're suggesting. ginger do you think there are those who caring. >> they care about the economy. every poll tells us that people care about the economy, and that's the issue that most people are going to make their minds up based on. >> eliot: ginger gibson and rick grenell, great to have you both on the abraham. >> eliot: the 99% are onononononononononononononononononononononononon

>> eliot: it's constitution day in america. the document that defines our basic framework of government was signed 225 years ago today. of all the constitutions defining major governments around the world, ours is the shortest by word count yet the longest lasting. it inspires our number of the day. zero. that's the number of times god is mentioned in the constitution. it's simply doesn't appear. a lot of folks would find that surprising. but the founding fathers really did believe in the separation of church and state. here's another fact that might surprise you the biggest problem getting the constitution ratified were that states were demanding a bill of rights. folks wanted a greater

definition of those i will alien alienable rights that had triggered the war of independence. they were ratified in 1791, and guaranteed freedom of religion, speech, and the press. today we're not just celebrating a document. we're celebrating free now to my point. (vo) jennifer granholm ... >>for every discouraged voter, there are ten angry ones taking action. trickle down does not work. in romney's world, cars get the elevator and the workers get the shaft. that is a whole bunch of bunk. the powerful may steal an election, but they can't steal democracy. >> eliot: occupy wall street

the impromptu grassroots protest marks it's one year anniversary today. in 365 days after protesters gathered in did you zuccotti park in a flashback to last fall, new york police converged on wall street, arresting where protesters gathered at new york stock exchange and several protesters rallied around the world. here with me, thank you for joining me. adam, urn there at the protest. did it have the feel that it had last year, the same enthusiasm,

size scope. >> size, not compared to the last protest. in terms of the actual feel t had a feel from of the better moments last quite joyful, jubilant and passionate. it did have that sense at times but sadly the other kind of nostalgic bit of it was numerous police arrests including journalists, actually. in terms of the size when i got there, 300 to 400 people. the numbers grew at the day i left at 6:00 and we were looking at 1,000 people. >> eliot: if you have a thousand people and the arrests ten percent of the folks arrested is a stunning figure. >> a huge conversion rate. if you drill that down to the number of those were journalists it's an equally high percentage. >> eliot: right. >> it's rather high. >> eliot: josh, what do you hear about what was going on out in

san francisco, san francisco, of course, had been one of the sort of hot spots of the occupy movement last fall. was there any sense today of evoking the passion and energy of last year? >> i think the passion and energy was there but as adam said the weren't. there was a group that blocked a street downtown, and the same sort of idea of disruption. i just didn't see it really demonstrating any momentum compared to what we saw last year. >> eliot: and adam the issue of course, that everybody is asking now what? it is one thing to stage an one-day sort ofe vocation of what you had last year, and people are passionate, they're happy celebrating what happened last year but this is a next step agreed upon by the thousands who were there? >> in a word no. people had different ideas. some of the people i spoke two were keen on sparking off of

what we saw last year where we had large-scale protests targeting actual street, trying to shut things down. other people were happen with the way occupy has gone. the localized movement and focusing joining up with pre-existing groups, focusing houses, trying to help family in impoverished areas and some believe that's the best way to go. to be on the from what i saw today, i'm not sure if it's going to happen. >> eliot: it seems that the organization and the movement, organization is the wrong word, the movement is suffering from a self-describe effort from leadership. it has no leadership, and therefore no decision process and no purpose and next step. am i imposing an outsiders critique or am i fair in what i'm saying. >> i think social media, twitter, for example allows people to organize themselves in a way that can be effective without a strong leader, but

there needs to be a sense of agreement among people with common goals and common strategies. that's the problem, there are so many different ideas. this is a movement of movements. it's been described that way. it has such a big tent, and that allowed fast, but now it needs to focus on moving forward. >> eliot: what happens tomorrow. the 900 who read the newspaper 100 will be in lockup. we'll read the newspapers, and many will feel good about that, but is anything go to happen tomorrow to get this to move forward. >> this is a week of planned activities to celebrate the anniversary. but moving forward there is nothing on the same scale for the rest of the week. on 21st street in manhattan there will people will be able to air their grievance abouts

the system. there is nothing immediately planned like on a national scale. >> eliot: will this disappear in the ether. without a next step, is there is there a of principles that people can point to and say here are the five things we hope to accomplish. it seems to me that it dissipates and it's a matter of political organization and political power. >> i think that is a potential outcome. i think there are things that people want to focus on. there is a new group that is targeting debt. they're called debt strike, and they plan to hold protests around that issue. that's garner enthusiasm and momentum. the question is can efforts like that draw in larger numbers of people and becomeing is that sustain themselves. >> cenk: adam, the contrast was drown all throughout last year

was the tea party and occupy wall street were viewed as grassroots movements from either side of the political spectrum. but the tea party has had staying power whether it's because of the money and linkage to political candidates, are the organizers or those who most fervently believe in occupy upset about that and believe they've created a temporary vehicle. >> many believe this is not a failure. it is somewhere on the scale between success and failure. there are people who are happy with the grassroots activism and effecting change on a localized level. there is this debate should they have occupied the democratic party, and would that have given them a voice on a national scale, and perhaps it would have done, but that would have left a lot of people in occupy disenchanted because they were turned off by main street politics in the first place. that's why they found a home in

occupy. it's a tricky issue. >> eliot: josh in san francisco, is there any sense that there would be an organization, something derided by the leaders of occupy early on is needed to make sure that there is another anniversary next year so that it doesn't disappear. >> i don't think see a lot of appointing people as leaders. adam hit the nail on the head when he said people are going local. there is something to be said about that in the long term. from these grassroots systems that something more organized emerges eventually. maybe people need to build these networks in a more diffuse way. >> eliot: having said that as successful as occupy was in exploring an issue and putting it on the agenda, to get to the next step, they need to do something more. andi think it needs some other

ingredient before it can get there. josh harkinson, and adam gabbitt, reporter, thank you for your time tonight. president jack you're a little boring. boring. boring. [ jack ] after lauren broke up with me, i went to the citi private pass page and decided to be...not boring. that's how i met marilyn... giada... really good. yes! [ jack ] ...and alicia. ♪ this girl is on fire ♪ [ male announcer ] use any citi card to get the benefits of private

pass. more concerts, more events more experiences. [ jack ] hey, who's boring now? [ male announcer ] get more access with the citi card. [ crowd cheering, mouse clicks ]

so, you guys grew up together. yes, since third grade... what are you lookin' at? not looking at i anything... we're not good enough for you. must be supermodels? what do you model gloves? brad, eat a snickers. why? 'cause you get a little angry when you're hungry. better? [ male announcer ] you're not you when you're hungry™. better. [ male announcer ] snickers satisfies.

you disgust me. prove it. enough is enough. d-con baits are specially formulated to kill in one feeding. guaranteed. d-con. get out. >> eliot: still to come, how capitalism still needs to evolve. we'll talk with thee steamed reporter martin wolfe. one speaks with a baby, another with a dog. but the worst interview of them all. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> our campaign has a secret weapon. and cha secret weapon is speaking right now in tulsa oklahoma. >> romney: hello, i'm mitt romney, and i understand the hardships facing ordinary americans. for example this summer, one of my horses failed to medal.

i know hardship. >> joining me now is max rice. he voted for president obama. >> hello ms. usa, it's an honor honor. >> ms. america. >> why are you supporting mitt romney. >> it's a funny story. i lost a basketball game. >> how are you doing there pal pally. you know what he's saying emc squared get that camera off my face. i'll take this cantaloupe-- >> big three-game ceremony in your honor. the one thing i want to ask you was there ever any doubt in your mind that you were not going to get the nod for this position? >> let's check in on paul ryan. >> i said i could do 100 situps in five seconds. what i meant was i could do five sit ups eventually.

>> the extent to which he has been apologizing for america he has abandoned some of our key ails poland, czechoslovakia. >> i want to give a huge round of applause to jennifer granholm granholm. [ ♪ music ♪ ] >> obama time. ♪ i'm ♪ so in love with you ♪ that was fun right? so, do you do you want that or this. ♪ ee-ii-ee-ii-o ♪ >> eliot: is it chancer that killed us

from silver screens... to flat screens... twizzlerize your entertainment everyday with twizzlers the twist you can't resist.

>> eliot: one year ago today protesters gathered at a small park in downtown manhattan, a few blocks from the heart of wall street. their grievances were many, and their passion was clearly displayed. their chant soon to be repeated throughout the world, we are the 99%. a reference to the income disparity in the united states. quickly protests began to spread across the country and soon into a worldwide movement about fairness and equality. many the time misrepresenented the movement about being anti-capitalism. it was anti-the form of capitalism that had become norm. as martin wonderful has quote the world's preeminent journallest writes in his essay which appears in the occupy hand book. capitalism has always changed in order to survive and thrive. it needs to change again. mr. wolf chief commentator for the financial times joins me from london.

thankthank you for joining us and thank you for for for your clever critique you've been pulling throughout the years. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be with you. >> eliot: throughout your article, you use a word that is at the core of so much of what occurred in 2008. that word is "leverage." why is leverage the elixir fundamental to the way the economy has gone. >> leverage is debt. taking savings from savers to people who want to use it, to use the savings. and the savings takes the form of a debt contract. our system has extraordinarily brilliant ways of creating debt. our whole banking system is designed to create it. if you start off in an economy

with prices that are quite low with an economy that is growing rapidly, creating debt and assumeing debt, in other words taking on debt contracts look like an aincredibly attractive way of making money. if the assets you're buying with debt do well, the prices rise, you make good profits you'll make enormous improvements with your wealth because it's in the nature of the debt contract, but what you're paying to the people who have lent you the money is fixed. but the value of what you bought with the debt contract can soar relative to that and you can make unbelievable returns. that's what happens in a bubble, in a boom. more and more people take on debt. more and more people make money out of this, and it becomes a mania. when it becomes a crash. when you get the crash you have a colossal problem in dealing

with all the debt that is outstanding in the economy. that's what happened essentially in 2007. >> eliot: not to put too fine of a point on it, but that's what happened historically over and over, values go up. people take on too much debt. they look brilliant on the way up. they look like idiots on the way down and what happens in the midst of that crash. >> it has happened time and time again. it's important to know that from what i can see the leverage cycle that we experienced in the developed world in 2007 was unprecedented in scale, which is why in the number of countries that have suffered and the scale of the countries--the only real power was japan in 1990. what happens is what happened to japan. people start saving. nobody is prepared to borrow. prices continue to fall, banks and financial institutions fail or will have to be rescued.

they won't lend any more, so the economy's basic engine ceases to function. it depends on 5 10, or 15 years of very weak demand. huge fiscal deficits which emerge when the economy collapses, which makes people very nervous. so you tend to have, as it were, the inverse of the boom period a depression, in truth, a slump. that's basically i think unfortunately where we are. >> eliot: let me ask you two questions. one, whose job is it to control leverage. is it a narcotic that we're addicted to, and what remedy is there to reconstruct our economy. >> first, i remember this, that

our tax systems stop subsidizeing leverage. we provide huge subsidies huge incentives in our tax system to increase the amount of borrowing in the corporate tax code and in the u.s. in the individual tax code. i think--i know it's terrible--but i think that should be ended. now if you're on the fiscal element, it has to fall on what i would think are the macro-prudential regulator. i believe the only authority that really has the power the capacity to oversea the leverage and what's happening and act against it through regulatory instruments has to be the central bank. there really isn't an alternative if we want to stop this. now if they would be willing to do so and politically able to do so and everyone is enjoying the party, that's a different matter. but if any institution is to respond to the respond to the

exploding leverage we saw in in 2000, it has to be the central bank. >> eliot: you're saying on the way up the central bank, the fed has to say you're overdoing it you need to control yourself because this sort of inflation will lead us down the path of recession. >> yes. >> eliot: you have a fascinating idea which is a wealth tax. explain to me why a wealth tax could help remedy the inequity in our society. >> well, there is a very obvious argument if you tax people's earned income at a high level people stop working. this is something in that. now let's suppose you value people's overall wealth, and you impose a mod modest tax, it's far less than the income they will earn, this will mean that even people who have huge assets but low income, they don't pay very

much tax at all and they will pay tax. that i think applies to billionaires, and it towns it encourages them to use their wealth productively. before moveing to a consumption tax or spending tax a wealth tax makes quite a lot of sense. i don't expect it to happen but i think we need to start being imagetive when we think about the extraordinary economy. >> eliot: it will not happen, but having said that, it's a fascinating idea. one that they're considering in france. it could not directly confront equity issues, but persuade people to use their investments in a wisinger more productive way. martin wolf, thank you for your

time. >> it's a pleasure. very interesting. >> eliot: thank you, sir. >>and now to my point. that is a whole bunch of bunk! the powerful my steal an election but they cannot steal democracy.

>> eliot: a strategy for occupy wall street to get back in the game. that's head but first let's check in with "the war room" at 10:00 p.m. eastern. governor, i hear your theme song. what is going on in the background. >> jennifer: stop! you couldn't help yourself, could you. >> eliot: am i that predictable. here is the question. when we have a picture on it, we need a wide screen lens to get your hair. >> jennifer: you can't even get me in. no one could stand in the room with me, i mean really. >> eliot: i love your line. >> jennifer: you had hair envy,

eliot, you know it. >> eliot: now you're hitting hard. you're right. i admit it. here is a question that america is waiting to answer. how did the date go. >> jennifer: i actually didn't go on the date. i said go to palm springs enjoy yourself. >> eliot: all right. get serious what is on the show tonight. >> jennifer: we're going to examine the turmoil in the romney war room. we're going to be looking at romney's adviser stuart stevens. and who is he and is he really the problem or just the scapegoat of a much bigger problem. we have strateg strategists and we'll do a bit on the the chicago strike all right here on "the war room." >> e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. >> eliot: occupy wall street's slogan, we are the 99% has become you ubiquitous. we are finally scrutinizing the tax policies that favor the wealthiest 1% and at long last we're asking harder questions about a financial sector that drove the economy into a ditch. for an essentially and indeed intentionally disorganized group of folks to have that enormous impact redefining our political discourse is quite an accomplishment for all those who

are dissatisfied that the occupy movement did not grow into the social agenda that some wish, i say give credit where credit is due. we do have to ask now what? a few sporadic protests on the anniversary does not substitute for an agenda. first, a suggestion, shoes one important idea that is perhaps outside the confines of our ordinary political chatter and place it on the agenda. my vote goes for martin wolf's suggestion of a wealth tax that could be used to pay for government programs, reduce inequality and reduce income rates for those who are struggling. second a political suggestion. the occupy movement needs an organizing principle. and it needs some actual measures of success. choose one candidate whose agenda is squarely within that of the movement, and make his or

her electoral success a focal point. and a successful candidates enter government, my first suggestion, elizabeth warren. whatever cause they adopt occupy has to move on from last year's protests. 12 months are ane turn night politics, but less than a moment in history. you can't survive long as a movement unless you push affirmative ideas and start >>and now to my point. that is a whole bunch of bunk! the powerful my steal an election but they cannot steal democracy.

it starts at $59 for the entire year for back up. put in code stephanie for your subscription. 18 minutes after the hour. >> eliot: are you ready for a big number? i mean a really big number. the cost of 2008's wall street

caused crisis more than $12.8 trillion with a "t." with me, dennis kelleher, president and ceo of better markets inc. we don't even have enough room on the screen for all the zeros. this is a big number. how did you calculate it and what does it mean to us? >> actually it's not that big of a number if you think about it in contest. we had the working financial crisis of 1929. $12.8 trillion not a lot of money, when you think of it in that terms it's not one full years of the gdp of the united states. >> eliot: what is that coming in 16. >> 14 and 15. >> eliot: you're talking about 85% of the year's gdp. >> it's a conservative number, and it does not include a lot of things. but let me tell you how we came up with the number.

first of all we catalog the variety of costs in the economic crisis that it precipitated. this are a lot of different numbers out there, so we focused on the gross domestic products what people produced every day. on october 2009 we reached a peak unemployment. we had 26.9 million americans unemployed in 2009. they did not produce goods or services. so we'll never be in october of 2009 ever again. that was lost permanently. calculate on cbo numbers what the lost gdp and it's all explained in our report on www. www.bettermarkets.com better explains what this crisis really cost in permanent lost. >> eliot: $12.8 trillion. i want to come at it in a

slightly different perspective. i think it's a huge number. $12.8 trillion is a vast amount of lost productivity, quality of life, and the reason why this matters so much we're hearing over and over again the tarp paid for itself, or the banks have repaid their money as if we're back to where we would have been without a loss. you're saying, no, that is a loss that can never be recooped. >> that's right. when you hear people talk about tarp, and i have to tell you its just astonishing because these people know better. first of all there is a political interest and ideological interest and people try to minimize the cost of the crisis. one sad thing that has not been reported in changing the focus from the financial crisis and their role in causing it to the dodd frank financial reform law in the rules they've changed that entirely so people aren't paying attention. but the truth is there are vast costs throughout the country in damage across the country that is not being talked about. >> eliot: and the damage is

greater than the $182 billion or the $12 billion just so goldman sachs for no reason but we like them. those numbers pale in comparison. there is a more subversive issue, the bill a few weeks ago in congress that says let's do a cost-benefit analysis, and they say the costs are so big the costs are so small do not regulate. you say the cost of not regulating cost $12.8 trillion. >> i'm willing to bet when history looks back it will be multiple of that. using friendly sounding names like cost-benefit analysis, they're really talking about industry cost only. they never talk about the cost to society or the cost to the financial. tarp will lie, it will cost 32 to $68 billion. that's not on the positive side.

>> those are huge numbers in and of themselves. but the number we want people to focus on is the lost value to the entire economy. that's what you're saying we should focus on. even if we bought their lodge the cost-benefit analysis, that's a good thing but you're saying you completely missed the calculous because of what you cost us. >> the cost is $12.8 trillion. what is the benefit of avoiding it. everything that was done was to avoid the second great depression. next time we won't be as lucky as we were last time. if we don't get financial reform the next time will be worse. >> eliot: time runs short, but i want to make one point. folks who are listening should know you're an old fashion wall street lawyer. you're not some radical from the left who happens to look like the corporate lawyer. you were the corporate lawyer, so you understand this stuff.

that's important in terms of giving important credibility and legitimacy to what what the market does and what you report. if you had one idea to impose on the regulatory level. >> it greatly limit the hi risk of the too big to fail banks on wall street. there is only one industry and one part of the industry that threatens the entire financial system of our country and economy, that's the biggest two-bigtoobig to fail banks and they need to be brought down so they can no longer threaten tax payers, which is you are they are doing now. >> eliot: martin wolf said the same thing. the point is leverage that creates the risk which creates the down side necessity of the safety net that only the tax pair creates for these too big to fail. dennis kelleher, thank you so much for your time. >> thank you