we're back, baby. americans aren't the only ones who can do this. we'll get into it. but i get to practice my french accent once in a while. show starts right now. the story today, training wheels. good thursday afternoon. i am dylan ratigan. today, the latest battle in america's jobs wars. president obama wants a nationwide job training program as part of his $447 billion plan that he says h get our nation back to work. of course, it doesn't address tax code, trade policy, or banking, but what the heck. earlier this year, republicans pushed for billions about to be cut from these specific jobs trading programs as a way to reduce our deficit. this afternoon, speaker boehner ruled out his own plan of response to the president's. >> let's be honest with ourselves. the president's proposals are a poor substitute for the pro-growth policies that are needed to remove barriers to job

creation in america. >> like a banking system extracting your entire country or trade agreements extracting your entire country or a tax code that is for sale to special interests. so hang on a second, boehner and the republicans are in favor of those things. then again, so, too, is our president. our question, is job training another band-aid myth to make it appear these washington fools are actually doing something, while in fact they continue to simply avoid the problems. think about it. the training programs are historically corrupt, full of pork and favors, ineffective. and ultimately have failed to produce even a fraction of the millions in long-term jobs needed and promised from infrastructure to energy to health care. now, do not misunderstood me. it is obvious there is a need and a clear value in training people for jobs. but if you do it all wrong, you simply are blowing more taxpayer

money. and both parties are good at that. if all there is at the end of the job training is not a long-term paycheck or a job that helps solve a problem, it's simply a better trained unemployment pool with a country deeper in debt. today, we're debunking the job training myth and starting to try to solve the problem of how to fix it with jim bovard, author of "attention definite democracy." also with us, dena cooper, for years she worked on jobs issues as philadelphia's deputy mayor of policy, trying to improve well-intended but frequently either dysfunctional or absolutely wasteful programs to try to actually get the intended result. james, i'm going to begin with you. why is it that these programs don't actually deliver what they promise? >> well, the labor department has no competence in training

people how to work. if you look at these programs, for half a century, federal programs have given trainees nothing but false hopes. that goes back to the manpower development programs in the 1960s to jtpa, to the current programs. you've had the same errors, the same mistakes. there is no way to make the labor department run these things correctly, and thus far, these programs have worked out better, for late-night comics than they have for the train yees. >> and to be clear, this is not a political bias. republicans have shown no more competency than democrats at doing this, correct? >> this is something i wrote about in the 1980s, actually for some liberal magazines. i was attacking the reagan administration's job training and partnership act, which was as much of a fraud as the carter administration program. >> again, donna, we -- this is a valuable proposition. we have a tremendous number of people in this country who have a desperate desire to work. we have a lot of problems in this country that we're

desperate to address, from infrastructure to energy to health care. training them would seem to be an attractive concept, certainly not only politically, but in reality. is there anything that you have seen or any organization in any mechanical system that actually hasn't been able to pull this off in a way that you create good jobs? >> well, i think there's two things. first of all, it's an attractive theory if you want to try and keep people focused on, you know, instead of creating jobs -- job training programs don't create jobs. they train people for existing jobs. have to have a federal agenda around creating jobs. there's not a job training program in the world that will create them. but, yes, i've seen them work. and why i think they fail is because we have low expectations for our training system. if you look at the training systems in germany, where they're the most developed, for instance, they have very high expectations. it's not acceptable that 50% of the people who enter your program drop out. so i think the issue is mostly

about low expectations. i agree, there's a competency issue overall in the field, but there are terrific examples where community colleges who have high standards, where apprenticeship training programs are working, but they're not going to solve the jobs program. so we have to decide which one we're talking about. >> yeah. james, when you look at this, and this is not anybody's opinion, these are -- this is a statistic. there's math that shows this, that i'm sure you're all familiar with. new businesses create jobs. small businesses don't do it, big businesses don't do it. businesses that are newly forming create the vast majority of the jobs, 70% of them. how is it that the jobs debate in this country never revolves around ecosystems or environments that create new businesses that solve our problems, which not only would create jobs, but also solve ours problems? >> well, that's a good question, because that's the obvious answer, as far as job training. if there are real jobs, then businesses have a real incentive to train them. but it's important, looking at

the history of these federal programs, it's not simply wasted money. the studies have shown that the people that went into these programs were harmed, were visibly harmed by them. they see the program, late 1970s, early '80s. that sharply lowered the trainee's subsequent earnings. same thing for jtpa. one of the things president obama is pushing is a big expansion of summer jobs programs. going back for 40 years, these programs have been shown to harm young people's work ethics. and it's certainly pob that there would be some individual program here or there that might do a good job. but as a nationwide system, it hasn't happened and there's no reason to expect the second half of the programs will go better than the first one. >> isn't the best system the system that aligns everybody's interests. we have problems, we have people who want the problems solved, we have people who want jobs, we just want everybody working together in a way that does other than creating jobs that are either extracting money from our country or me from you or me from our government or me from

whoever. we want to create jobs, we don't want to take things from each other. >> absolutely. i want to challenge the notion that the current job training system has harmed people. i think there were some bad experiences that no longer happen. but the question is whether we have a job training system that can deliver for the 10 million people or so who are unemployed and help them get into the labor force. and it's got to be a system that reflects the diversity of needs of those people who need training and the diversity and needs of employers. you suggested that large employers with jobs already, they would actually invest in the training of their workers. but, in fact, all the research indicates that less than 10% of employer job training money is spent on their entry-level workers. so that means we have a gap between the people walking in and their skills and what the employer needs. and that's what the job training system has to effectively fill. >> go ahead, james. >> i wonder if i can get back -- mrs. cooper mentioned there's

not evidence that these programs have harmed people. the largest study showed that young male who is enrolled in the jtpa programs had 10% lower earnings than a control group that did not join the program. you've had a lot of studies that show how these summer jobs programs can hurt young people. and it's important these are not victimless failures. you've had all these failed programs. they have harmed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people so it's not simply wasting money. it's harming individuals and their lives. >> so i can just talk from firsthand experience of having run a program that put about 7,000 people to work in a two-year period. >> for how long? >> 70% of them entered the labor market at twice the income that they walked into my program and they were working 2 1/2 years later. >> i've got -- i don't want to get too lost in this debate, because i know that you both agree that this could be done much better, which i think is

really the point. >> yes. >> and the bigger point is, how do -- why are we not in a political conversation that actually would create jobs in this country, which we need to have trillions of dollars of money coming into this country that's creating tens of millions of jobs. and instead we're getting a political conversation from both parties that goes to -- whether it's -- i don't care, there's a list of things like this, none of which have any demonstrated capacity to create millions of jobs or bring in trillions of dollars, only trade banking and the tax code, really, have that capacity, and yet it's never involved in any of the debate, james. i don't know why that is? >> i think part of the trouble is the existing programs provide great photo opportunities for existing politicians. it makes them easy to appear like they're caring and generous, a way to buy votes, and lets them promenade as saviors. and that's very appealing to politicians. and i'm not aware of any politician that ever lost his job because he supported a job

training program that hurt the employees. >> listen, donna, james, i appreciate both of you and joining the conversation and respecting my wish to avoid going too far down the downside debate in favor of a focus on what we could gain through improving this. i thank you both of you for your attention to this and for your analysis. thank you, donna. thank you, james. coming up here, wee w we, is true, my friends, new sign that the bailout is on the way. retirement heist as well a little later, companies plundering and profiting from your pensions. a new author exposes the lies and greed of those you trust in your own company to protect your nest egg. and for all the folks that skipped the book and just wait for the movie, a definitive answer on whether you're actually missing anything. somewhere in america, a city comes to life. it moves effortlessly, breathes easily.

it flows with clean water. it makes its skyline greener and its population healthier. all to become the kind of city people want to live and work in. somewhere in america, we've already answered some of the nation's toughest questions. and the over sixty thousand people of siemens are ready to do it again. siemens. answers. let's design a vacation on a bumake it work.edia. see what anandra did? booking her flight and hotel at the same time a serious money-saving maneuver. book it! major wow factor! where you book matters. expedia. 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.

all right. call it the beginning of le bailout. our central bank, you and me and our currency, the u.s. federal reserve along with other central banks are now pledging to support major european banks who could go bust in the event the bailout was not put in place, or at least would be at risk for such an event. the goal is to stave off the european union's debt crisis fallout, greece, you know the story. it's not just greece, italy, et cetera, et cetera. meanwhile, back here at home, we've got 20% unemployment, nearly 50 million people in poverty, and $14.7 trillion of our own national debt.

should we really be doing more money printing, saving more people? and shouldn't we actually be considering a global debt restructuring on the honest assessment that we have built a banking system on fraud? our thursday megapanel, karen, susan, and jimmy join us on the hotline. jimmy retail, author of "bailout nation." barry, what exactly is our central bank doing today, or doing this week? >> let me first say, happy anniversary, today is the lehman brothers anniversary -- >> thank you. i knew i had a spring in my step. >> it's ironic that la bailout is taking three years after la lehman collapse. >> to the day. >> so let's take a quick look at europe. what's going on there is a fear of another lehman, which didn't cause the rest of the collapse, but it certainly precipitated

and accelerated a lot of bad things that probably would have happened anyway, from happening more quickly, and the concern, this bailout in europe is a concern that, gee, if we don't shore up confidence and if we don't get some cash to these banks, we're going to see a replay of 2008. >> the concern, obviously, for the typical american or certainly a viewer of this show in this country, et cetera, is what risk is my government putting me at as an american by getting involved with this, short-term and long-term? >> well, you know, the first approach, the actual current approach is, hey, the federal reserve is doing this, which is really a separate entity and not a taxpayer funded entity. it actually generates revenue for the government. so there's not much risk as of right now. the risk comes if the u.s. is asked to participate in a european-like t.a.r.p. all of this, which was basically

a troubled asset purchase program. all of this goes back to many, many banks. now it's especially in europe, but two, three years ago, it was in the u.s., borrowed too much, lent too much, had too much leverage, too little capital, and the causes of that problem essentially are still in place. we added some additional regulations, but we didn't undo the things that led to the collapse. >> which is no capital requirements, basically capitalism in the banking system without capital. so you can do whatever -- it's a gambling parlor? >> well, you know, we used to have on the investment bank side, we had something called the net capitalization rule in place, since 1975, that limited it to 12 to 1 on the traditional depository banks. there's been a series of decreases in the amount of capital required. this has been a long, slow grind

where the required amounts have come down a little bit. you could call it regulatory capture, you can call it just a tight relationship in the revolving door between washington and wall street, but that buffer, that ability to say we have enough capital in house, in case something goes wrong, it got whittled down to the point where the margin of safety all but disappeared. and that -- >> and thus, we end up paying for all this. go ahead. >> but i think when you translate this into the average american, we have to bail out europe, and the reason we have to is once again, it's too big to fail, and politically, don't we have to, because when we look at our markets and how they react to what's going on in europe, we're clearly afraid of a double-dip recession. we're not going to let that happen. so politically, what choice does the obama administration have but to give them money? >> you know, recessions happen. you have to occasionally allow the cyclical recession.

the idea that we're obligated to deal out speculators and not allow markets to go down, it's the worst sort of moral hazard that began under greenspan and it's just got progressively worse. >> oh, i agree with that. but politically, this administration can't afford to have that happen going into an election year. >> you agree with that, barry? that there's a political motivation to avoid the debt restructuring and the bank restructuring that really needs to be debated, because whoever does, it's not going to win next year. >> you know, the politicians in the united states have run into the exact same problems that the ceos in the country have run into, which is a horrific form of short-termism. and everybody is focused on the next quarter's earnings or the next two-year election cycle. and so no one's willing to make the difficult choices, the long-term investments that have to be made. you know, if we had this attitude during world war ii, we would have lost the war. hey, i can't make the politically challenging choice, because it's uncomfortable and

it's difficult and the public is going to be upset. that's not leadership. the politicians have to lead, and that may mean making the right decision, even if you're going to lose your job. >> jimmy, go ahead. >> well, i've got to tell you, i've got to be brutally honest in saying that i thought we did declare our independence and fought a war from the british, now the euros, back in 1776. yet, here we are being captured by the european markets, first. that's the first thing. second thing, but most importantly, it's bad enough that we had to bail out our domestic speculators. so someone please explain to me why in god's name we're bailing out the european speculators? i would like to know the answer to that. because i'm pretty sure that people in dubuque, iowa, don't give a crap about brussels. >> barry? >> first, just so we're on the same factual page, we've already bailed out much of europe, because if you look at the data that bloomberg obtained through a freedom of information act

against the federal reserve, a huge percentage -- not quite half, but almost half of the money the federal reserve lent out -- went to european banks. we helped liquefy them. >> so we're going to do it again? >> explain to everybody why we're doing that. there's some threat or leverage or some part of our too big to fail with europe that we're willing to engage in 2008 as we did again this week in bailing out speculators about -- and the speculators, by the way, are now speculating the get on greek debt, the bet on italian debt is i bet they're going to get bailed out. >> that's right. well, we put together a system that following the great depression, we put in a lot of rules and a lot of firebreaks in order to prevent exactly what's going on today from happening, which is, if there's a particular bank that's collapsing, if there's an insolvency, the idea of all

these various rules, such as graham -- such as go back to the 33, 34, 35 legislation that passed glass-steagall, things like that. kept wall street separate from wall street. in fact, the 1987 crash is a great example. the market plummets 23% in a day, doesn't impact the regular depository banks. we've, over time, removed those limitations. we've allowed banks to bulk up and become much bigger. the irony, post-2008 collapse is, banks are now -- the top ten banks are bigger than they've ever been, they're all highly interrelated, and so when one bank catches a cold, everybody gets the flu. and it's really a problem. the solution to this is to put those protections back in place, overturn the various legislations that allowed more leverage, no regulations on

derivatives, you have to get rid of the derivatives, the commodities -- >> the swaps market. >> right. you have to turn the various weapons of mass destruction into something that's contained and controlled. and you have to make these banks that are so massive, if they're too big to fail, make them smaller. we've done nothing to address the underlying causes of the problems, so of course there should be no surprise that this has reared its head again. >> karen? >> well, i have to say, i agree with jimmy, that i think, for the majority of americans, they're not going to understand why this is in in any way, shape, or form in our vital, national interest. but at the same time, i think the obama administration takes a big hit on a lot of this stuff, and, you know, say what you will about their policies, let's not forget, though, that regardless of what you think about dodd/frank, it is a step, and at this point, you've even got republicans say they're going to

defund it or not fund it. so i actually question, again, this is the thing i always keep coming back to, on both sides, the ability to really make the kind of systemic change that you're talking about, because i think the political will just really isn't there. >> and i guess, karen, where i take issue with you in this is you -- i feel like you like to give obama and the democrats credit for trying, which i understand. i like to indict them for being the ones who have their hand on the switch. there's no -- these guys didn't create this at all! this was under bill clinton and george bush. it goes further back. i like to indict them because there's only one person in the room that can engage this problem and it's whoever happens to be the president that week. >> but you know what, dylan, this is where you and i kind of go back and forth on this. having worked in the white house, my particular perspective is also based on the reality of the politics of the situation. and there are a lot of things that i would like to see the president do more of that -- i mean, he can pass something, and if congress says, we're not going to fund it, then what? >> but this president is

fundamentally weak right now with this congress. >> hey, dylan, you want barack obama to fix this problem? >> any president, i don't care. >> okay, simple. you make it so that lobbyists and corporations can't give politicians money and i bet you ten bucks, democrats, no republicans would ever bail out wall street ever again. >> that's absolutely right. and one last thought i have to throw in here. there was a generational moment when obama was first sworn in, january, february, march '09 when everything was going to hell, that was the opportunity to restore the appropriate regulatory balance that had been removed for years. instead of doing that, we got a lot of the same architects of the crisis, larry summers and timothy geithner, who were major contributors to this were instead put in charge, and of course they weren't going to admit their error and undo what they had done. we're stuck with the legacy of both the bush administration and the obama administration -- >> and clinton! and clinton. >> -- essentially carrying the same policies.

>> but, also, again -- >> we've run the clock, karen. i'm going to keep you. barry, thanks for helping us to understand this a little bit better again. karen, jimmy, susan, stay. we've got a whole lot more on la bailout online including a new skooips conversation with josh rosner and sean egan on what exactly is driving us to do this. what we could be doing that is not this. in the meantime, if this whole conversation does get you hot and bothered, join our alliance, tweet us, hit us up on facebook, the more of us that exist around this agenda, the more easily and effectively we can be heard, and i always appreciate the opportunity to interact and hear ideas from you. straight ahead, it is not in my movie, but it is one of the biggest heists in u.s. history. our specialist investigates who's stealing america's pensions, after this. whoa! hey!

[ dog barks, growls ] ♪ whoa, watch out, little man. ♪ [ male announcer ] when you take away the worry, it's easy to enjoy the ride. hey, bud. hey, dad. [ male announcer ] introducing cadillac shield. the most comprehensive suite of owner benefits offered by any luxury auto maker in the world. 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. ♪

well, whether it's cutting social security, targeting medicare, or slashing the interest rate that retirees plan their golden years around at the federal reserve in order to bail out banks, there is no question that our country, america, is as a matter of policy making life harder and harder on older americans at a time when there are more of them than ever before. but that is not the least of it. our next guest says the retirement crisis is not just said, it is sinister. and her new book exposes not only what we're discussing, but specifically corporations that are making calculated efforts to pillage the pensions of the very workers in those companies, while in the process protecting executive compensation and raising profits reported on a quarterly basis. and joining us with the panel now is ellen schultz, investigative journalist for the "wall street journal" and the author of "retirement heist: how companies plunder and profit from the nest eggs of american workers."

tell us the most damning thing that everybody needs to understand. >> well, in the '90s, there was a quarter of a trillion dollars in surplus assets in pension plans and employers on a steady basis drew those assets down. they are spending it on restructuring costs, they were selling the assets in merger and acquisition deals, and they were even using some of the assets to pay for the executive benefits as well. and this, as you see, has consumed all the cushion in the plans, so when the market went down, it cratered in 2008, there were no cushion left, so the plans are now underfunded. >> and leaving a ton of people stranded and they have no recourse, is that correct? >> well, they have their pensions, but the millions of workers at companies now have seen their pensions frozen, so their pensions aren't growing at all. and they're even worried if the companies don't continue to put money into the plans that the plans will fail and they might lose some of their pension. >> karen? >> it strikes me that this is

really very similar to kind of the sham we're seeing in the public sector, where you have, you know, republican governors saying that it's the unions and there are pension demands, when the truth is, these pension funds very oftentimes are diminished because of poor financial management on the part of the state. so it seems like we're having a similar problem both in the public sector as well as in the private sector. >> these are seen as piggy banks, effectively. >> yes. and there are parallels with the public plans. the same consultants who are helping sploirs cut benefits and often hide the cuts from people were the same ones that were helping the public plans increase the benefits, but hide the growing underfunding that they're experiencing. so it was a group of people essentially passing the buck to the future at the expense of current and future -- >> and those people are pension managers, state governors, ceos, board members in collaboration with financial industry executives? that's really the group? >> yes. in my book, i talk about how primarily the large corporations and the top executives were

working with consulting firms like ernst and young -- >> for cost savings? >> right, claiming their pensions were so costly that they had to cut the benefits, when in fact cutting the benefits gave them two things. it not only let them keep billions of dollars for themselves, but thanks to accounting rules, it allowed them to report those cuts as profit. >> because now look at all the money we're making because weapon don't have to pay this pension anymore, which is what you were teaching me about. that's like d.c. accounting. >> yeah, government math. >> we just fired everybody! jimmy, go ahead. >> ellen, it sounds a lot to me like you're sounding a lot like social security. i have a question, though. if you had to go testify before congress right now, give me one thing that you would propose to congress that would fix the problem that you write about in your book. one solution. >> the one thing that i would suggest is that companies follow the federal law that's already in place. one of the primary cornerstones of federal law for pensions is that the assets are to be used

only for the retirees and the employees. solely for the participants, not for the companies or shareholders or top executives. >> it's a benefit if you work there and provide labor, in principle. >> it's deferred compensation. >> you're being paid for your work later. >> yes. and that should be protected, but it isn't. so -- >> like i said, sounds like social security. >> but, jimmy, social security, i think people can -- >> but there's no one else seeing -- >> i guess when it comes to whether it's state governors using state pensions to be free spending to get re-elected or corporations that are doing what is being described to us here today, who is the gatekeeper in the current model in the government that theoretically would intervene? would this be the attorney general in a given state? eric holder? who's the cop here? >> from the federal level, it certainly would be the ag. certainly, state ags could go after companies that are headquarters in their states or

have a facility in their states. but at the end of the day, it's the pension rules written by congress and then as interpreted by the auditing houses and others. so if ellen's right, and i don't think that she's not right, that the current law is not being enforced, i think that certainly is a question and i absolutely look forward to the senate democrat in the majority having hearings, asking why, in fact, people's pension funds are being plundered. >> a new idea just popped into my head. is there any remote chance that perhaps if money was taken out of politics, that the senate and republican -- it's a novel concept. that perhaps then the politicians might be able to engage more directly with issues that are being raised? >> i have a better idea. >> hmm? >> why don't we just take the money out of politicians' retirement funds and use that money to fund the pgc? >> that's a good political statement, actually.

>> i'm a populist, so. >> well, listen, it's a pleasure. thank you for your journalism. we, obviously, are very interested in making sure as many people understand what you are reporting as possible, as if we don't understand it or know anything about it, we can't do anything about it. >> thanks very much. and thanks as always to our panel, susan, karen and, a, and. next up here, what "the help," "the hunger games" and "twilight" all have in common and why some say you might want to skip the flicks. have i got a surprise for you!

a mouthwatering combination of ingredients... 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. i know what works differently than many other allergy medications. omnaris. omnaris, to the nose. did you know nasal symptoms like congestion can be caused by allergic inflammation? omnaris relieves your symptoms by fighting inflammation. side effects may include headache, nose bleed, and sore throat. got allergy symptoms out of my way. now life's a picnic. [ man ] omnaris. ask your doctor. battling nasal allergy symptoms? omnaris combats the cause. get omnaris for only $11 at omnaris.com. omnaris combats the cause. you could save a bundle with geico's multi-policy discount. geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. ♪ geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance.

a living, breathing intelligence that is helping business rethink how to do business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ in here, machines have a voice... ♪ [ male announcer ] in here, medical history follows you... even when you're away from home. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities, creating and integrating solutions, helping business, and the world...work. rethink possible. well, it's sad but true, americans are reading less these days. it could be for any number of reasons, not enough time, other things to do, or because almost every book that hits the shelf gets turned into a movie anyway. in fact, half of the top ten grossing films from last year were based on, yes, books, but a new website is asking you to step away from the library or

bookstore. read it first. as a simple request, pledge to read the book before you see the movie and it might even be good for you. the site proclaims books provide four times for enjoyment than movies, and reading is proven to enhance your memory and your creativity. one book i know all of our loyal viewers will read before it comes to a movie theater is "greedy bastards" by yours truly. watch for a big announcement about it on facebook, twitter, and on the show next week. as for the movie, we've been tossing around some ideas on who should play me. my personal pick would be john cusack. who do you think? . coming up, the two words americans fear most these days. >> you're fired. you're fired. you're fired! you're fired. you're fired! >> our friend, noah cass on turning pink slip anxiety into productivity, after this.

gary... he hung up. ...why do we have so many a's in our name? so we're listed first in the phone book. ya know, gives us an edge. you know fedex can, give us an edge. how? well, fedex ships auto parts from factories around the world, they clear em through customs, and that'll help us fix cars faster. great idea. you know you got a bright future here at aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... [ male announcer ] supply chain solutions. fedex. solutions that matter. o 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. i'm a dad, coach, and i was a longtime smoker. in my heart i knew for the longest time that did not want to be a smoker. and the fact that i failed before. i think i was discouraged for a very long time. ♪ knowing that i could smoke during the first week was really important to me. [ male announcer ] chantix is a non-nicotine pill

proven to help people quit smoking. [ jeff ] chantix reduced my urge to smoke, and personally that's what i knew i needed. [ male announcer ] 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. ♪ these are the reasons i quit smoking.

[ 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 financial advise is everywhere. i mean everywhere. real objective investing help.

that's a little harder to find. but, here's what i know... td ameritrade doesn't manage mutual funds. or underwrite stocks and bonds. or even publish their own research. so guidance from td ameritrade isn't about their priorities. it's about mine. it's about mine. it's about mine. straight forward guidance, that's what makes td ameritrade different. what's up? >> came here to let you go. >> pardon me? >> came here to fire you, jerry. it's real. you should say something. >> [ bleep ]. >> in these tough economic times, 14 million americans out of work, an ever-increasing

number in poverty and millions more simply squeaking by. it is no wonder that even those with jobs, even crappy ones, are worried that they will lose them. who could blame them? but here with tips on how to alleviate all of that anxiety or at least some of it, call it pink slip panic, is noah cass, the clinical director of the realization center, a large addiction treatment center here in new york. also a columnist for thestreet.com. i can't think of a more rational anxiety than fear of losing your job, particularly in an economy like hours. >> that's the scariest clip from "jerry maguire." a gallup poll came out late august, 30% of the workforce is scared that they'll be fired, 33% are scared their wages will be reduced. 40% are scared their benefits will be cut. most of it is rational thought. i got an e-mail from someone two weeks ago and said, there is no rational reason why i think i

should be fired, except that everyone around me is getting fired, and i have to find a way to calm my nerves so it doesn't destroy my personal and professional life. so what i did was challenge his rational thought patterns. he said, i am definitely going to get fired. so i went over with him the times, three months ago when everyone got fired and he didn't, the time six months before that when everyone got fired and he didn't. and i had him assess his own skill sets -- >> so your point is, you are you. >> you are you. you're not a statistic, right? and so sometimes we take these macrostatistics and let them affect ourselves too much personally, and it becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy. >> the danger of identifying with the statistics is you can fulfill the prophesy. >> and then you don't innovate. personally, i'm not motivated by fear. i succeed more when i'm in an environment where i'm allowed to be creative and open. i've never really seen anyone worry themselves into doing better at work.

it just didn't happen. >> you don't scare yourself into coming up with a great idea. >> no, you tighten up, or you say something -- >> so if the fear is rational and the fear is also a barrier and not getting rid of the fear can actually become a self-fulfilling prophesy where what you're afraid of happens, what do you do? >> thomas friedman on "meet the press" a couple weeks ago, he talked about how we have to adapt in the new economy, invent our job, and then reinvent our job. we have to make our job vital to our company's growth. now, there's some jobs in our workforce where you really can't do that, but there are sop that are. that means taking extra computer classes, taking managerial classes. seeing what's needed in your company and filling that need and being aggressive about it. >> or in society. >> absolutely, absolutely. and you know, this hope -- the upcoming political race, you know, the upcoming -- all the races, the races for congress, the races for presidency, it isn't so much to me about being elected, it's about losing the job. >> and fear of --

>> fear of being fired, fear of not being able to have that cushy job in washington. i think that's a lot of what motivated these elected officials, including the president. >> and the point is that the fear is fuel for creativity and production and innovation if you harness it for that purpose. >> but it's very difficult to harness. what do people normally do? >> they get paralyzed, they become aggressive, they become self-destructive. >> a list of maladaptive behaviors. you know what business is on the rise? my business. substance abuse, addiction. because they don't harness it like you're doing, like other people are doing. they take it out on themselves, they take it out on their family. that's why it's so important. >> but what's determinative to that split? we all have fear, we all have anxiety, every last one of us. some people are able to convert that into production and change. other people it either paralyzes them or in worst scenarios,

destroys them. >> i think it's your outside support system, i think if you have people in your life who are continuously encouraging you to do better, to find your passions. >> that you can do this. >> that you can do this. >> we will help you to this. >> if the inevitable does happen. if you foresee what the inevitable happens and you do lose your job, you will get back on your feet. >> because there are people around you who are invested in you. >> who are invested in you and invested in your strengths, and love you for a reason. >> so the community really is the central -- >> the community -- >> the community defines whether fear propels you or -- >> it's the essential ingredient. 100%. that's why it's so important the choices we make in spouses and friends and family. >> because that really is what determines not just job loss, but as the disruptions of life naturally occur, death, whatever -- i mean, we all know the lists, with those with a strong community around them are much better suited or much better able to navigate.

>> to roll with the punches. absolutely, absolutely. >> give me a couple of other tips specific to the pink slip panic that can be applied to folks that are sort of a little bit -- not at 30,000 feet with our fear conversation, but in a practical manner, i'm afraid i'm going to lose my job, i'm paralyzed with anxiety, what should i do? >> first of all, you have to have the ability to disassociate with the anxiety after work. there's a point where you no longer get returns for extra hours. there's a difference between working ten hours a day and 13 hours a day. and once you start overworking to such a point, you no longer get it back. and it starts hurting your emotional growth and starts affecting your performance. so there has to be a balance in your personal professional life, even in moments of economic strife. that's still, still essential. continue to navigate what's out there. always be looking for better opportunities on the dl, on the down low a little bit, you know? and keep navigating with

different friends about what opportunities are out there. >> what about you? you also mentioned things like exercise and relaxation, which is pretty counter to someone who's fearful of losing their jobs. people who's thinking about losing their jobs and think, i'm going to go relax, doesn't happen a lot in the brain. >> there's two ways to do that, i just, literally, for the first time in my entire life, started exercising a caouple of months ago, and it is such a freaking relief, after getting through a day of working with people who have a lot of problems, getting that anger out on a treadmill or lifting some weights, i mean, i'm lifting the smallest amount of weights possible, but just to get that toxicity of the day out. it feels so unbelievable. you know, and i'm able to after that calm down and face you know, my friends or my family or my girlfriend with a little more calmness and a little more sense that the future will be okay. >> and you argue that your experience with exercise is basically uniform to human

beings? >> i would argue that you have to do something, from exercise to meditation to movies to reading. you have to do something other than work. again, you can't worry yourself into having your work environment be calm. >> noah kass, you can check him out at thestreet.com and regularly here on d.r. show. coming up on "hardball," the donald meeting rick perry, but what are his intentions? chris matthews with a little 2012 game theory. but first, insight from image and lloyd weber, arguing leading from behind may actually get america back out front. [ male announcer ] this is coach parker...

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. ♪ wuntil i tried this. nothing helped me beat arthritis pain. it's salonpas. pain relief that works at the site of pain... up to 12 hours. salonpas.

here for the daily rant on a different kind of american exceptionalism, msnbc contributor, emma jean lloyd weber. >> thank you, dylan. obama's foreign policy joined the event of the arab spring has often been labeled as leading from behind. it has been criticized by many. romney has stated that america is seen as being weak. not this time. after decades of debatable american foreign policy decisions, this new obama doctrine is starting to look like a stellar one. america has a bit of a history from leading from behind. the u.s. went through a long phase of isolationism over the past century. world war i began in 1914 but the u.s. didn't join until 1917. my small island of the uk was on its knees after two years of world war ii before american finally entered the fray in december 1941 and saved the day. world war ii, of course, altered the political alignment and social structure of the world. europe could stitch itself up

and america rose to dominance, its isolationism at an end. there started the phrase of america leading from the front, safeguarding a grateful free world was not without controversy. korea, vietnam, iraq, and the rest. obama's inclination of leading from behind isn't about abandoning american leadership or return to isolationism. it's about policy that's not utterly self-defeating. facing facts, pursuing american interests now requires a bit of subtlety, as unfortunately the u.s. is reviled in many parts of the world. a massive show of leading from the front is just going to hand out the anti-imperialist and anti-american pr card to dictators, whose first resort is always to blame foreign intervention as cynical as the old colonialism. no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. a people have to own their own revolution. the images of the rebels stomping on the head of a

gadhafi statue inside a compound will far better in libya and across the arab world than the picture in 2003 of u.s. marines pulling down a statue of saddam hussein with an american flag draped over his head. i don't recall seeing footage of a single burning of an american flag join the recent protests and revolts across the arab world. america leading behind has allowed us to embrace human rights as global ideals that belong to them too. this defangs the narrative of radical islam. and make no mistake, that is a major victory for america. it makes america stronger. >> very well presented. the only issue that occurs to me is that a lot of the protests in the arab spring are protests against dictators with funded, armed, and advocated by america. so it would be kind of absurd

for america leading the protests -- not that it's beyond us, because we're the biggest group of hypocrites that exist along with any other government, but how do you reconcile that? >> there has to be a change in all western governments policy. for too long, we've been absolutely hypocritical, we've been propping up dictators for short-term stability. now, of course, there is that world wide web. so let's face it, those inside the arab world can see how hypocritical we are. the only way with we're going to move forward is to absolutely uphold our core values of freedom, equality, and liberty for all. so supporting trade unions and so forth -- >> what if that cost us our oil? >> alternative energy! >> that's for another rant. >> alternative energy. >> good to see you. well done. >> thank you, dylan. >> immojen lloyd weber, check out her out on the web. "hardball's" up right now. texas hold 'em. let's play "hardball."