and what's goion the agenda? >> what isn't in the agenda? that's my sales pitch. let's begin the show. well, the big story is, of course, the jobs market. you are fired. americans giving democrats the boot. good day to you. i am dylan ratigan. the news keeps getting worse for president ama as his job approval ratings continue to sink to new lows. his party lost both special elections held last night, including new york 9 that has been in democratic hands going back to prohibition. some call it a referendum on obama's jobs plan or his policies towards israel. others call it a win in a lesser of two evils voting situation. the other guy was worse, so what are you going to do, but however you characterize it, the political grandstanding does nothing to solve america's jobs

crisis, investment crisis or innovation crisis, and right now president obama back at the white house pushing his jobs plan today in north carolina which, of course, a major battleground state for the presidential election in 2012. >> it's about giving small business owners and entrepreneurs a win. it's about giving students a win. it's about giving working families a win. it's about giving all of us a win. >> but more than half a nation believes the jobs bill will do nothing to bring down unemployment. it does nothing on the tax code, trade agreements or banking system which are all determinative to flow of capital and money in our nation. we have a packed show starting with msnbc's mike viqueira at the white house and luke russert at the capitol and politico's executive director joins us along with the mega panel in a bit. you guys are better at this than i. every time there's a special election. anybody who wins says that's a referendum on the other guy and whoever loses says no, it

wasn't. mike, what's the white house spin on the special election losses? >> reporter: well, i've got to tell you, dylan, the burden of proof is going to be on democrats. we're talking about a 61% district and as you point out not since the 1920s has that seat been held by a republican. here's what the house says today on the presidential aircraft, air force one, jay carney says that special election are often unique to their outcomes and do not tell you very much. about future regularly scheduled elections, and he goes on to point out that over the course of the two years in the last cycle, in 2009 and 2010, some ten special elections, democrats held most of the seats and the republican seat, where you're from, dylan. >> that guy was crazy where i grew up. >> reporter: what was up there, moose, caribou. you were describing it. that's the only seat that democrats turned that seat. you can also point to the scott brown seat. that was another special election, republican won senator kennedy's seat. and so you can make the case that these special elections,

often revolve around peculiar issues, especially when it comes in the aftermath of a scandal, as obviously that new york seat some four months ago, the western new york seat, the craig's list congressman, when they lost that seat, held by republicans and lost by democrats, now the converse happens. you can make that argument in the aftermath of scandals, it's a unique and peculiar situation, but i don't know, queens and brooklyn, 61%, anthony weiner, chuck schumer held that seat. that's a tough case to make. >> i agree. at least you persuaded me in that direction. luke, what is the president's jobs bill status in the context of clearly skepticism if not declining outright declining support? >> reporter: dylan, for lack of a better word, i spoke to a gop aide earlier today, and over the last few days, and this thing is really dead on arrival in the house of representatives. there's a few reasons why. number one, one of the main mechanisms to pay for this bill is a way to go after the

itemized deduction rate for those making over $200,000 a year. this was tried back in april of 2009, dylan, when democrats controlled the senate and democrats controlled the house. it was dismissed immediately by a lot of democrats that represent wealthier areas, so one of the main portions of bill is attacked by republicans, don't want anything to do with it and are branding this jobs bill as stimulus 2.0 and attacking the president for saying his all or nothing approach is not feasible in such a republican-dominated body. what they will say is a few things they could get done, your favorite, free trade agreements as well as a few other things in terms of a payroll tax holiday, but in terms of this grand reaching jobs bill, house democrats are on the capital steps today trying to drum up support for it, but republicans are not going to touch it in its current capacity. obama can barnstorm the country and go around and try to drum up support amongst the populace, but in a parliamentary procedure way, this thing as a whole is

not going anywhere in the united states congress. >> luke, thank you so much for your -- for the reporting. can i just make one clarification with you, luke, before i let you go. >> yes, sir. >> around here on "the dylan ratigan show" we like to call it rigged trade. you mentioned it as free trade. they haven't taken my phrase up in d.c. yet? >> reporter: not as of yet, but come on here and crack some skulls on capitol hill, dylan, you would fit in quite well. hire a pr firm. >> i'm set up. work the people. working for the people. you're the people's champion, my man. come out here and do it. >> rigged trade, baby. rnc chairman calling the new york 9 special election results undoubtedly a referendum on the democrats. the gop saying just days after the president's address to congress voters went to the polls and overwhelmingly rejected his recently announced stimulus 2. that is their spin.

democrats are balking at the idea, as vic mentioned, the white house says special elections don't predict the future. they are one-offs, but wasn't it just a couple of months ago that the democrats were calling their win in new york 26, another special election, a referendum on poll ryaul ryan's budget pla >> democrats in congress and even some candid republicans know the republican plan to kill medicare is irresponsible and indefensible. last night voters showed the country and the congress that they know it, too. >> you don't say. jim vanderhye, hypocrisy in politics today is the rule. where's the truth all of this? >> throw jay carney a little piece of a bone and hit him with the rest of the bone. >> do what you've got to do. >> no doubt that this election says nothing about 2012.

it says everything about this moment there. he's no way you can look at these results in a district so heavily democratic and see republicans win so convincingly and say it doesn't have anything to do with obama. every democrat who studies that race knows it has a lot to do with obama. it speaks to the intensity of his opposition and also speaks to the lack of intensity of his support. liberals are turning on him. moderate democrats are turning on him. he is at the weakest point of his presidency to date. no doubt he can turn it around. no doubt he can turn it around on this jobs bill or once he has a match up for that general election. right now he's unpopular and the numbers are going down, down, down. his number among independents is going down, down, down. that's a bad place for him to be, and it was all encapsulated in this one race. >> i want to bring in the mega panel. you had a question, as you were listening, to jim, rob. go ahead. >> well, jim, question. isn't this really a referendum on incumbency itself? i mean, it seems to me that --

it's really difficult for the republicans to get too smug about this given that really it's about joblessness. it's about the economy and this grinding austerity without actually any austerity measures that we're seeing the american people go through. i think it would be really dangerous to -- for the republicans to see this as anything but, you know, we don't like the bums in washington vote. >> and there's no way they can interpret it as a validation of republican theology and a public embrace of republican theology. look at the numbers in every single poll over the last two weeks. 80% of americans basically loathe washington. they loathe both parties. they loathe how the place works and can't get anything done. so it's a terrible place to be an incumbent, and given that, there's so much volatility in the political system that whatever is hot today can be very cold tomorrow, and you cannot predict even the next two weeks much less 15, 16 months from now based on what's happening in this moment. but we do know for the

president, as he's sitting at a place when you are weakened, it's harder to get things done on capitol hill because he can't even force democrats to do what he wants to do like he could two years ago, much less entice republicans to go along with ideas that they don't support. >> jonathan, your thoughts here? >> well, i was going to ask if mike is still on the line. >> yeah. >> if mike is there. >> we'll get him on the line. >> yeah. >> my question goes to something that luke was talking about, about the president's jobs plan, and -- and whether, you know, it really is, one, whether it really is doa considering that republicans control half of congress. i believe luke is absolutely right, but my question for you, mike, is did the white house know this when it put the jobs plan together? did the white house know that they were putting together a plan that was going to meet up with near total resistance from the republican-controlled house and the very close numbers there

in the senate? >> i think what they understood was that they stand -- on the merits of the proposals themselves, if that were another day and age, jonathan, and you didn't have to work alert, washington speak here, pay fors offsetting the $447 billion plan with cuts elsewhere or tax raises as it turns out elsewhere, you know, this bill would have a pretty good chance, quote, unquote, emergency funding that didn't have to be offset. one of the reasons why you saw the president and the white house delay the rolling out of these pay fors, of those offsets a few days until after they had announced the bulk of the bill itself is because they knew, these things have been defeated in a democratic congress. they might sound great. they are obviously not popular. >> what would be the logic behind that, if it's calculable that there's no way that a plan like this can get through a republican-controlled congress, mike, jim, jonathan, why would be the strategic logic in doing this? >> because -- because they stole a march.

got three days of people debating the merits of their bill and got the president going out there in campaign-style events and barbing republicans saying they can't take yes for an answer. it became very obvious in the course of the last couple of days the way he wants to pay for it is out of the question and likely to get folded into the debt ceiling negotiations. >> go ahead, jonathan. >> the president, as you laid out the timetable, or maybe it was mike. he gave the speech. the president gave the speech at the joint session. remember what happened almost immediately after the speech. the conciliatory tone that came from -- from eric cantor, house majority leader and from speaker boehner and even, you know, a hint of something nice from senate minority leader mish mcconnell about wanting to work together, cumbaya, so on and so forth that. never would have have happened if the president said in that speech here's my plan and here's the way that i want to pay for it that you people really just don't like. >> we're watching the umpteenth

cycle of american problem-solving, if you want to call it that in a political sense, while there are real things. we have a lot of money we spend on a lot of things that we don't get a lot for, whether it's in education and learning, health care. i don't go through all the lists. is there a point where politically it makes sense to actually solve some of these problems? not because you want to, but because to keep your job you -- to rob's point with the incumbency backlash having level of intensity, that it actually makes sense to address the unaddressed in order to survive politically? is it flipped? >> you would absolutely hope so. however, if this jobs bill actually is dead on arrival as everybody is saying, and, of course, we know what obama is going to do, the truman re-election strategy of the do-nothing congress, and that is what he is going to be running on. what i do want to quickly say what we've seen with the elections, special elections.

we have a saying in the uk that a week is a long time in politics. this tends to happen, so really it's a mistake to read too much into the special elections right now. >> don't you think rob's assertion that the best analysis of this is not -- people know both parties are bought, incompetent, misaligned, however your indictment is, they are clearly not working to solve the problem. they don't want a different group of people. they don't have a choice other than the two they are being presented with, whoever is in the chair toss them, and that phenomenon is maybe the most prevalent and disruptive and potentially most dangerous. >> but the biggest loser out of this would be the big incumbent which is the president. >> right. >> so if -- if their eye is on that prize, and that is generally what a politician's eye is on. >> the presidential prize. >> right. so despite what might be, you know, shooting their nose off to spite their face kind of thing, if they can get the president out, they seem to be pretty happy. >> so much depends on who he's

running against and that limb pact on voter turnout. >> it's the lesser of two evils. >> if perry is running that helps obama. >> i think -- if there's a real lunatic, someone against him, i just think it's going to be very difficult. >> the good news is there's a lot of lunatics it seems on the republican side. >> i didn't say that. >> if there was a lunatic. >> all right. thanks to mike and luke for their reporting. jim, thanks for the analysis. the panel stays coming up here on "the d.r. show." what's in your wallet? turns out it could be a matter of life or death. forgive the reference there. plus, destaned for disaster. three years after the collapse of lehman brothers, reasons to worry. we haven't learned a darn thing. and you've seen the video and heard from the heroes, but would you actually pull a stranger out from under a burning car? what if you knew the person and didn't like them?

we'll test our mega panel's humanity in a minute. [ venus ] what are they doing to stufy? they're making him triple double. why? this! new triple double oreo. ♪ yo stufy, come here! [ shoes squeaking ] looked better on paper. [ strike! ] [ gasp ] [ mom ] my husband -- he thinks it's a 3-sheeter.

i say 1-sheeter. bounty can clean the mess with less. [ female announcer ] in this lab demo, 1 sheet of bounty leaves this surface as clean as 2 sheets of the bargain brand. ♪ dance cooking? bring it. super durable. super absorbent. super clean. bounty the 1-sheet clean picker-upper. and try bounty napkins. whose non-stop day starts with back pain... and a choice. take advil now and maybe up to four in a day. or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain.

way to go, coach. ♪

if you're in the lower 20% of american income earners, you are going to live six and a half years less than if you're in the top 20%. it's not that you don't have a nice house or a nice car. you are going to die six and a half years earlier. >> senator bernie sanders on msnbc earlier today on new government data that shows a record number of americans, over 46 million to be exact, now live

in the statistical definition of poverty. does that not come as a shock as income gap has been increasing for a decade and this is a natural symptom of an extraction. the top 400 americans now own more of our country's wealth than the bottom 150 million combined. they also have a tax, trade and banking system that gives them little incentive to invest significant capital in our own nation. is anyone out there looking for the american middle class, american innovation and american prosperity? let's bring back our mega panel. the ails of poverty are infin it and the ability to solve problems is obvious. the liability of distorting that system into extractionion, which is how i see it, extractionism, the opposite of capitalism, just

kind of looks like capitalism. >> one thing to have the united states balance sheet look like a latin american banana republic. now it looks like our wealth and income disparity makes it look -- it's not quite that, but it's -- >> we're trending. >> but this isn't the right way to go. now, of course, one thing it did show from 2009 -- you know, in the last year, basically that that income disparity didn't -- it wasn't a huge-- stabilid. >> stabilized for 10, 15 years, so what you would like it to see is actually narrow. >> your silver lining it stopped going up as fast. >> yeah. it -- it didn't widen quite as much as it could have. >> right. >> considering what we have with, you know, 50 million americans out of work, a recession that's -- and people without -- with losing their -- their homes. >> right. >> you would have thought that it could have been a lot higher. starting to see like glass half not ash bad as it looks kind of thing. >> a little bit of water in the glass. >> your thoughts. >> i mean, until the inequality in this country is dealt, you're

not going to see massive growth. if you say look at middle class income between 1980 and 2010, it's gone up by 11%. in the same period for the wealthiest americans it's gone up 42%. now you look in history, america has done best, had strongest growth when the middle class has been driving that growth, not when the wealthiest have got massive proportions of the income. >> the money then seeks to invest with the country as opposed to seeks to leave the country. >> it's not in the rich's interest to have such a great disparity. >> at all. >> this is what creates revolutions. this is like, you know, 18th century france. this is the -- >> the gilded age. >> so one has to be careful, even our richest, this is why you hear magnanimous words from people like warren buffett, they understand it's a problem. >> you get phone calls. you get billionaires that call you saying dylan, i'm freaking out. they are like i'm worried about this country because i know that this setup -- the people at the top know this setup is bad.

jonathan, at the end of the day, can you correct the symptoms of this problem, take -- tax one group and give it to another group, whatever that is, which is politically expedient in some cases and also politically disastrous depending on how you set it up. can you also try to do some sort of a systematic engagement and say what is the flaw in this system that is causing this disparity? what is your sense of what would have to have to happen to move to a systematic debate as opposed to the band aids? >> right. i'm glad you brought that up because what we're talking about, the poverty numbers, the wealth gap. these are all long-term problems that everyone has known about, particularly here in washington, particularly on wall street. everybody has known about these things and yet -- and in all of the solutions that you've been talking about, dylan, for years now, are -- they require long-term thinking and long-term planning. unfortunately, we have by and large, generally speaking, a

congress and an electorate that is for lack of a better description mired in short-term thinking. what can we do right now to solve problem "x," solve problem "y" or to, you know, improve my circumstances in this amount of time, something in short order, and we're never going to get to the long-term solutions to the long-term problems as long as our congress and electorate are stuck in short-term thinking. >> but the interesting dynamic that we're starting to see potentially play out, i think we are seeing it play out, is the rob cox incumbency rejection. i believe that was the 2010 election. i believe that's a lot of these special elections, and the only way -- i think people are rejecting what you just describe. they can see what you're describing and trying to figure out how to reject it and the only way they can manifest that feeling in the electoral model is to just kick whoever is there out which doesn't solve the problem. >> exactly. they keep kicking people out every two years soy don't end up

with anyone good sitting in place who can be there for several terms and get the problem solved. i'm done. >> i know. you, jonathan, listen, if we did a poll of our audience i wonder which one of us they would think most likely to do the -- to rescue somebody from peril and which one they would find least likely. that would be a fun online poll. can't do it. but it would be fun. seen this video. good samaritans picking up the burning car. of course, not everybody is so charitable. remember that famous "seinfeld" scene. >> come on. >> give me your wallet. >> don't shoot. >> well, there goes the money for the lipo. >> see, the great thing about robbing a fat guy is it's an easy getaway. they can't really chase you. >> you're under arrest. >> under arrest. >> what for? >> article 223-7 of the latham county penal code. >> what. >> no, no, we didn't do

anything. >> that's exactly right. the law requires you to help or assist anyone in danger as long as it's reasonable to do so. >> jonathan, is that not where we find ourselves today metaphorically in this nation, but before we get into the metaphor, let's do some personality analysis, just the four of us. >> uh-oh. >> i'm going to start since my name is on the door. i believe that jonathan would rapidly respond to that situation. i believe that imogen would attempt to rapidly respond to that situation or at least flag other people in some way maniacally to get them to help. >> yeah. >> i believe that rob would respond positively, and i believe -- i believe rob and i would both help, but i believe the audience might be skeptical of that. i think that the audience might look at you or me and say i don't know rob or dylan would help, and now maybe i underestimate my audience. i do think there's a gender bias where there's -- where there's an expectation that the woman

from england, for instance, would be helpful. do you think that that's true? >> do you think it's manners? i did go to churchchurchill. we make a living by what we get. >> so you would find the burning situation, rob, she would find it, refer to "seinfeld" and then refer to churchill and she would act. >> yeah. >> it would have taken a little while. >> yeah. >> google churchill. >> yeah, google churchill, google the quote. >> what to do? what to do? >> honestly, i think everybody here would try to help, but whether you know exactly how to help is the question. i mean, actually going into a burning car might not help because you end up perishing. calling 911 certainly would be the first reaction for most people but, you know, you pick someone up who has hurt their back, can you make their back worse and then get sued by them, by the way.

>> yes. >> you have to be quite careful. i think most people it's a risk management question. >> goes to my tea party metaphor, jonathan, where the tea party is like a group of people that find out that america has problems and then wants to solve it by taking a kitchen knife to themselves. it doesn't solve the problem, so you get points for identifying the problem and lose points for stabbing yourself to solve it. this is one of those situations where clearly there's much help needed, but a -- a prompt but sophisticated approach would seem in order. >> exactly. it's admirable that everyone wants to jump in. i think people do want to jump in and help where they feel like they can make a difference. unfortunately, you -- you hit the key word. sophisticated, and what we've seen so far in washington, particularly the tea party people here in washington, they are notnot terribly sophisticat. >> is it not in everybody's

interest that we fix that view? fair? >> jonathan. yes, fair. i was told we were done. so i wasn't saying anything. >> i always wondered about that. want to tell the audience real quick. the control room will get in the panelist ears saying don't answer his question, won't shut up so poor jonathan, if you answer that question, we're not going to put you on the show again. >> mary doesn't say that at all. >> i felt it was a fun -- i was always wondering. thank you, that's great. the panel stays. coming up, is the world in need of t.a.r.p. 2.0? in europe they are calling it the le t.a.r.p. it worked so well here, right? our specialists say it may be the only thing to get the global markets back on track in the short term, and he's with us next. as a manager, my team counts on me to stay focused.

so i take one a day men's 50+ advantage. it's the only complete multivitamin with ginkgo to support memory and concentration. plus vitamin d to help maintain healthy blood pressure. [ bat cracks ] that's a hit. one a day men's. sun life financialrating should be famous.d bad, we're working on it. so you're seriously proposing we change our name to sun life valley. do we still get to go skiing?

sooner or later, you'll know our name. sun life financial. got the mi >> so, ah, your seat good? s just stay off the freeways, all right? i don't want you going out on those yet. and leave your phone in your purse, i don't want you texting. >> daddy... ok! ok, here you go. be careful. >> thanks dad. >> and call me--but not while you're driving. we knew this day was coming. that's why we bought a subaru.

if you're just tuning in, lehman brothers is expected to file for bankruptcy. there are a variety of contingencies. the federal reserve working to facilitate an orderly process. this is a day remembered, september 2008. >> that was the beginning. see how much gray i had there? look at me. now it's a mess. that video is from three years ago on the eve of lehman's demise. the bank panic followed. the bailouts money, printing, been over it a billion times. never been done before. fast forward now with wall street's casino, prif swaps market, bigger than ever, too big to fail. still dark, still invisible, still not an exchange, affecting everything. europe, greece in crisis as we head towards what they say in france is le t.a.r.p. or t.a.r.p. 2.0 but this time on a global level originating out of europe. larry mcdonald says the only way

through this is to actually duplicate the abomination of 2008 because there's simply not the political will to restructure the debt. it's a pleasure to see you, larry. >> good to see you, dylan. >> walk us through, educate us a little bit what's going on and what you think will happen in the next couple of weeks and why should we care? >> well, it's all lining up in a very interesting way. next week you've got the fed meeting. this weekend you've got a meeting in poland where secretary -- treasury secretary geithner will be in poland with other european finance ministers, and also late next week coming to washington you have bric leaders, so it's all lining up in a very interesting way. >> this will result in a big pile of money to bail out every european country, basically to protect the single currency? >> i've been telling clients the last ten days of the possibility of this. essentially the -- the efsf. >> what's that? >> the european financial stability facility in europe. now, that's this facility that can back up the ecb.

>> that's the money -- that's where they would print the money. >> the european central bank. >> okay. >> so they have this facility, but if you look into the -- the architecture of this facility, it has t.a.r.p.-like conseque e consequences and attributes, so they can -- they can actually invest directly in banks, or they can -- >> but there's no debt restructuring, no market restructuring, just looking for money to fund the machine. go ahead, rob. >> i mean, there is a fundamental problem which is that greece isn't solvent so you have to deal with that. i think what you're talking about is you have to have a restructuring there. you have to have a default and the problem, of course, is the hit that the banks will take. >> which is the german and french banks. >> the german and french, all the banks essentially, so when you're saying is this -- efsf has the t.a.r.p.-like qualities to invest directly to recapitalize the banks so we don't have a giant, you know -- >> so we don't have to deal with the problem which is that we've got an insolvent structure that needs a major global debt

restructuring which nobody wants to deal with. is that fair? >> one of the things i talk about in my book is that the greatest sins of all sins is the way they let lehman unwind. like letting a 10,000-pound domino go right in the ocean and it hurt so many people around the world. it was a helter skelter unwind. >> as opposed to a structured environment. >> yes. >> and what's going on behind the scenes with the efsf is the greek unwind, everybody thought last weekend it was going to be like over the weekend. i think it will be a one-year unwind where they actually give a mark-to-market break on the banks for nine months or something like that. >> go ahead, imogen. >> short term this is helping the euro survive. long term, can the euro survive? i'm incredibly doubtful. obviously european populations, europe is democracy and becoming ever increasingly euro skeptics. the markets want the euro to survive and the politicians and the people within europe are unhappy. the germans and greeks are very unhappy and so forth.

do you think the euro will survive over time? >> i've been on this global speaking tour and delivered about seven speeches in europe over the last year and a half, and every time i talk to europeans, when i talk to my friends over there now, can you clearly tell that the people in the north are very upset. >> incredibly. >> incredibly upset. >> they pay their taxes and obviously the greeks you can legislate to high heaven. >> but the northern banks were so greedy that they would have wanted to finance the south to give them whatever they want hoping to get paid off so everybody is a little bit. >> they were aaa. >> i've heard that. >> i think the euro stays together and in a smaller group and over time some of the weaker ones will go. >> the greeks will do. >> and one or two others. >> imogen kind of stole my question. listening to the conversation am i to take it that the euro is now too big to fail, that they are going to come up with a way to not just let it die but to

keep propping it up because it's too big to fail? or am i not following? >> you're absolutely right. think of italy. italy has 1.9 trillion of government bonds. spain has another 600 billion, 700 billion. >> italy wouldn't be in trouble, would it, if it weren't in the euro, it's actually very strong. >> do 20,000 lira for a cup of coffee. do a 20 trillion lira note. >> a lot of countries haven't had control of their own currency. >> they can't just devalue. >> my twitter hand will is convert bonds and i've been tweeting about italian spreads. italy has been able to issue paper. >> they keep borrowing money. >> but their spread over u.s. treasuries -- >> the cost of borrowing. >> over u.s. treasuries is now close to 400 basis points. >> and getting more expensive. >> 4% more, thanks for the claar if

claarification. maybe nine months down the roads they don't fund themselves. >> the big headline in the "wall street journal" or the "new york times" or around the internet, wherever it is, if they were to drop chinese money in or non-european money in to bail out europe. >> that's right. >> that would be the big to do. >> there's a premise you must have an orderly restructuring of greece. if that doesn't happen, all hell breaks loose. >> orderly restructuring i'm in favor of. jonathan, thanks a lot for playing. much more with larry on a podcast conversation now posted at dylanratigan.com. check it out and tweet us your thoughts. post them on facebook. we are always checking to see your views and expand that conversation. straight ahead here, however, my comedy show debuts. >> here are the two critical distinctions that you would argue. money does not equal happiness. money --

>> know, that's good. there's a guy here selling patchouli here after the show. [ cherie ] i always had a job, ever since i was fourteen.

i could not make working and going to school work. it was not until the university of phoenix that i was able to work full-time, be a mom, and go to school. the opportunities that i had at the university of phoenix got me to where i am today. i'm mayor cherie wood, i'm responsible for the largest urban renewal project in utah, and i am a phoenix. [ male announcer ] university of phoenix is proud to sponsor education nation. because we believe an educated world is a better world.

[ male announcer ] university of phoenix is proud to sponsor education nation. don't our dogs deserve to eat fresher less processed foods just like we do introducing freshpet healthy recipes of fresh meat and fresh veggies so fresh the only preservative we use is the fridge freshpet fresh food for fido

to clear up a little bit of confusion, yesterday a comedian, emphasized a comedian, jeff chrysler, joined us for a segment on his book and a comedy tour about how you get rich cheating. it appears that some of our viewers didn't quite catch on to what i was saying. i'm not endorsing cheating. i am not endorsing corporate greed, i'm not even endorsing psychopathism or socioopathy that might cause harm to human beings. in fact, it's presented by a satire, a running joke. the colbert report or, if you live in the new york area, the mets. we actually continued the comedy act, if you will, last night on his live show here in manhattan. >> the other assumption is we're all alone. born alone, die alone, et cetera. i believe quite the opposite is in fact the case, that there is only one group of us. that we are -- that no one is alone and that the indulgence of

the aloneness is purely a justification for the fear that is necessary -- that is a result of the rate of change that precipitates the greedy bastardism that you describe. there's only one group of us. >> they had a very thoughtful and well put together argument, and i look forward to taking advantage of you. >> it was a lot of fun and we'll have the whole hour. we'll have a whole hour up, i believe, or if we don't. on dylanratigan.com. thanks to jeff for having me on and the audience for laughing. hopefully now everyone gets it, that it was a joke and one we may actually be doing a bit more of, so i do hope you enjoy it. up here you heard about crowd sourcing. heard of crowd funding. the man behind a year that could create a million jobs and restore a true capitalist market. [ grandma ] why do relationships matter? [ grandpa ] relationships are the basis of everything.

[ grandma ] relationships are life... if you don't have that thing that fills your heart and your soul, you're missing that part of your life that just fulfills you. ♪ [ male announcer ] for us at humana, relationships matter too. the better we know you, the better we can help you choose the right medicare plan. that's why humana agents sit down with you to figure out your medicare options. and we have nurses you can call anytime, even at 3 a.m. because when you're on the right humana medicare plan and taking good care of yourself, then you can be there for the people who matter most. [ grandma ] my family is my joy, my hope... they are my heart. it's the reason we get out of bed in the morning... [ grandpa ] the reason we fall into bed at night sometimes. [ grandma ] yes. that's right. [ male announcer ] humana. woohoo! whoa. haircolor is a chore no more!

you gotta come see what's new. c'mon! tadaaa! welcome to haircolor heaven. aa-ah-ahhh! courtesy of new nice 'n easy colorblend foam. permanent, dimensional color, now in a delightful foam! just three shakes, foam it, love it! simply saturate hair root to tip, front to back. with tones and highlights. it's foamtastic! home haircolor, make room for foam haircolor! new nice 'n easy colorblend foam. your right color. and i was a pack-a-day smoker for 25 years. i do remember sitting down with my boys, and i'm like, "oh, promise mommy you'll never ever pick up a cigarette." i had to quit. ♪ my doctor gave me a prescription for chantix, a medication i could take and still smoke, while it built up in my system. [ male announcer ] chantix is a non-nicotine pill proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix.

if you notice any of these, stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some of these can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. dosing may be different if you have kidney problems. until you know how chantix affects you, use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. ♪ my benjamin, he helped me with the countdown. "5 days, mom. 10 days, mom." i think after 30 days he got tired of counting! [ male announcer ] ask your doctor about chantix. over 7 million people have gotten a prescription. learn how you can save money and get terms and conditions at chantix.com. learn how you can save money and get terms and conditions luck? i don't trade on luck. i trade on fundamentals. analysis. information.

i trade on tradearchitect. this is web-based trading, re-visualized. streaming, real-time quotes. earnings analysis. probability analysis: that's what opportunity looks like. it's all visual. intuitive. and it's available free, wherever the web is. this is how trade strategies are built. tradearchitect. only from td ameritrade. welcome to better trade commission free for 60 days when you open an account. everyone here knows that small businesses are where most new jobs begin, and you know that while corporate profits have come roaring bark, smaller companies haven't, so for everyone who speaks so passionately about making life easier for job creators, this plan is for you. >> well, a poll shows most americans don't think the american jobs act will in fact create jobs. there is an intriguing proposal buried in all that fine print.

it's called crowd fund investing. it would update our securities laws, how we raise money from investors for companies out of the industrial era when they were written and into the internet age. during the past ten years there have been a small dollar donor revolution using the internet, you probably know this in america. websites like kickstarters and donors choose raising money for schools and other projects. a large group of people each give a few dollars and in it some money. well, the s.e.c. which regulates capital formation, raising money for ideas actually prevents large groups of people to put money into new business ventures unless those startups jump through expensive legal hoops intended to protect investors from buying investments and things that might be a fraud. we call it selling blue sky. how do you know the company that you bought is something that actually exists? well, there are some exemptions in the obama law that would

change some of that and allow small startups to raise money online in a serious way. let's bring in an entrepreneur and advocate sherwood niece. i want to clarify something that the president say. with all due respect and humility he's incorrect. he says everybody knows that small businesses create jobs. i believe that that is factually incorrect. if you look at the research it is new businesses that create jobs, frequently new businesses are small, and you can mistake for the fact that the smallness in some way has to do something with job creation, but it in fact does not. it's just that new businesses tend to be little. give us a sense of how many new businesses could be created if we were to adopt the internet as a capital market where we can form capital and invest in businesses. how big are the possibilities? >> well, if you look at the success of crowd funding sites over the past five years, i think you'd see if we extrapolate out, we can probably create 500,000 new businesses

over the next five years from just getting capital flowing to the young new ideas. >> and you're saying the biggest issue with raising money on the internet, which goes to the blue sky laws of the 1920s and it goes to why we have securities laws for a good reason which is to protect investors, in this case particularly small investors who may be appealed to the idea or the neighbor's company or whatever it might be from ending up investing in businesses that don't actually exist, it's called selling blue sky. it was a very good business if you want to get a place in tahiti, why we have securities laws, how is that being reconciled in this? >> well, in those situations it's usually one-to-one fraud, and that's the way fraud used to take place. the reason crowd fund investing will work is it's because one to many. if you have an idea you have to pitch that idea. you as an entrepreneur and an investment opportunity to a group of people that will pick it apart so it's going to be a lot harder for you to take advantage of a group of people who are looking at you in detail.

>> you're saying there's a natural accountability in this structure. >> oh, yes. the group vetting that will take place on the internet through crowd funding sites. >> if i wanted to raise money for a business right now, i would have to go through a series of securities loops. would i have to basically document my prior earnings in a way that was standardized and then publish that in a proprospectus and go through a whole string of things to then list my stock at the nasdaq or list it at new york stock exchange, whatever it might be, to raise that money. how would this work and how is it different? >> so what you would do in this situation is you'd go to platforms very similar to the various crowd funding platforms called crowd funding platforms. instead of taking large groups and small donations and funding non-profits, the same dollars would go into buying equity into these companies. >> but i'm saying what's the regulatory mechanism that

ensures that that works? >> well, what we're doing is we're pushing the s.e.c. to carve out another exemption so that people can follow the framework under the exemptions to raise capital in this capacity. >> but i'm saying does the exemption create no government regulation between the investors and the idea-makers? >> no. that's a really good point. it's actually re-regulation. what we're trying to do is not deregulate. trying to come up with a new set of standards and procedures that people canful or get capital flowing to entrepreneurs. >> what are some of the notable -- how? >> so, essentially what you can do under our framework is you can go out and crowd fund up to $1 million of equity from your social network, and individual investors, mainly credit investors will be capped with how much money they can raise in this platform. $10,000 we suggest and there would be disclosure requirements by all investors that they can lose their entire investments. >> you create a relatively small threshold into the amount of money. you can't raise $1 billion on

the internet, raise $1 million on the internet or 100,000 on the internet which is the necessary capital formation for the new businesses you're talking about and then basically learn from there. >> small businesses take $50,000 to get launched today. we wanted to give them enough room to grow and raise more capital so that they can back and succeed. >> along the way, would you help me make this distinction between new businesses and small businesses because it drives me crazy. >> i will do my best. >> appreciate that. congrats on what you're up, to and look forward to seeing how it goes for you. lost idea. thanks for the time. >> thanks, dylan, appreciate it. >> still ahead, washington's resolving doors spinning round and round. look at her go. a look at the biggest revolving door in the world. i know you're gonna love. [ barks ] yes, it's new beneful healthy fiesta. made with wholesome grains, real chicken, even accents of tomato and avocado.

yeah! come on! [ barking ] gotta love the protein for muscles-- whoo-hoo! and omega-rich nutrition for that shiny coat. ever think healthy could taste so good? [ woman announcing ] new beneful healthy fiesta. another healthful, flavorful beneful. so i take one a day men's 50+ advantage. as a manager, my team counts on me to stay focused. it's the only complete multivitamin with ginkgo to support memory and concentration. plus vitamin d to help maintain healthy blood pressure. [ bat cracks ] that's a hit. one a day men's. no? change the channel. waiting. waiting. still here? it's this... etrade's pro platform. sizzles the trading senses. heart of their new elite trading program. your lethal weapon. designed bottom up? cha-ching. integrated top down. customizable. well, duh. no compromises. no multiple platforms. all in one place. period. exclamation point. throw in elite access. elite service. elite kitchen sink. there's your difference. got it? get it. good. new pro elite from etrade. investing unleashed.

all right. here with the daily rant, our friend, our neighbor and a man who works for the nation when he's got a brand name around his journalism and a fine name it is. ari, good to see you. >> thanks, dylan. a study published this week reveals yet another problem with congress. a transparency group documented how many congressional staff have gone from government work to lobbying. for lobbyists there's good news, 5,000 former or current congressional staff have gone through the resolving door for lobbying in the last decade, the highest number on record. what does that mean for congress? well, as the "washington post" explained yesterday, thousands of lobbyists are able to exploit experience and connections gleaned from working inside the legislative process. these former congressional staffers can lobby their former co-workers and bosses. in fact, today there are almost as many lobbyists as

congressional staff. now often ex-staffers provide that hill experience to groups that also have disproportionate power in our politics. large corporations, special interest groups and political players like the nra, or the aarp. now, to be clear, people can leave government and work for whomever they want, but i think the policy question is about the information and access that the government grants public employees. should that be up for sale? so while former hill staffers can work anywhere, they could also be restricted from discussing government information or competing in the policy arena that they left behind. that would be the lobbying. under current law, for example, senators are barred from lobbying for two years after they retire from congress. now, look, congress passed that restriction as part of the 2006 ethics reforms. i think it's a good rule. president obama i think to his credit chose to ban most lobbyists from serving in his administration, but that only stops people on the way into the revolving doors, into

government. the new data that we're looking at here shows today one of the biggest problems is the exodus of staffers out of government and for the greener pastures of lobbying. just imagine passing a law to counter this trend and lock those revolving doors. well, you don't have to. michael bennett, a senator from colorado, has already introduced a bill that would create a six-year ban on lobbying by congressional staff after they leave our government where we pay them. more controversially, at least among his peers, senator bennett's bill would also replace the two-year ban on former members of congress with a flat lifetime ban on lobbying. now, that would get congress' attention. so far though the bill has only one co-sponsor. >> but this is interesting. it goes to the money in politics amendment that we're working on and talking about with people like jimmy williams and the tea party people are very interested in this. obviously congress is never going to pass that bill because it's against their interest. it is only in the face of massive outside public pressure that this will happe