simple, very focused campaign to get money out. people ask me why is this so important? my answer is that getting money out is the singular first step we all must take together in order to ensure that we all get the debate that we deserve on the issues that are of consequence to ourselves and our children and instead of the to and fro charades that we've given from most in washington and for that matter the media, a special interest political system that makes real debate on efficiency, investment, health, learning virtually impossible. and nowhere is that barrier of money more apparent than in the american housing crisis. since 2006 in our nation american home prices, trillions in residential and commercial real estate that we all live and

work in, have dropped nearly 31%. that's a third. it means that if your home was worth $300,000 and you took a loan to purchase it five years ago, that it is now down to about $200,000 and yet you owe the balance of the debt. despite record low interest rates set by our central bank, 2011 is on track as an all-time low in new home sales for america. making matters worse. nearly a quarter, 23% of all american homeowners are now what they say is under water which means that you probably know this. you owe more than your house is worth. you not only have zero equity, but you may owe hundreds of thousands of dollars on an asset that is not worth nearly what you owe. 11 million homes are like this. until this housing crisis is fixed, our economy simply can't

recover. there's too much money trapped in that one place. think about the immobilization and the labor force, the lack of investment in our country. the burn rate every month of all that income that's being generated paid to service that debt that's going nowhere. yet where are the real plans to resolve this misaligned interest? we haven't heard anything from our president, or the democrats, or the republicans for years, because they both depend on money from finance and real estate which would be directly threatened by this type of resolution. with us, as can you see here, henry blodgett, editor and chief of "the business insider" and nyu professor matthew richardson who authored "guaranteed to fail, fannie mae, freddie mac and the debacle of mortgage finance." professor, before we get into the origins of the price distortions that in fact our entire market now, of creating money out of thin air for political benefit or even

righteous moral intention, before we get to that, henry, how determinative, how influential is the health or trapped capital in the housing market to everything that happens on our economy? >> i think what you talked about is exactly right, that there are millions of homeowners who are stuck. >> how much money are we talking about? >> trillions of dollars, don't know exactly how much but drill i don't understand. >> that's not being invested or developed. >> that's right, and people can't move to jobs, and they can't get out from under, can't restructure their mortgages because there have been restrictions on the loan-to-value of the house and so forth, so it is trapped. but the answer is what america faces right now is a debt problem. we have too much of it. we have to restructure it, so anything the government can do to help people restructure that and banks wash all of the crap off of their balance sheets, that will help. >> the interesting thing, professor, you don't get into a debt problem situation, an inside out multi-trillion dollar

market without a systematic infection of some sort of a problem. i've argued that the problem is the decision to basically suspend capital requirements in our capital markets, whether it's the requirement to have capital at the government level or the down payment or the banks and with the mortgage lenders, give me a severance how distorting a market -- hoy distorted a market can get if you suspend and lift capital requirements. >> dylan, thanks for having me on the show. you look at this crisis at the heart of the crisis was a refinance system, and at the core of that were these two institutions, fannie mae and freddie mac. they were companies with full government backing, went from being little bitty players in the 1980s by today owning 50% of the mortgage market, $5 trillion of debt and almost no capital. >> basically that was the origin of financing for the average american to take a home loan to buy a house was a loan that was

being issued to them against the u.s. government, not actually against the bank they thought they were borrowing from, per se? >> with very little capital at stake. >> why is that so dangerous? >> that's what driven home prices from the huge price they have fallen from. home prices have fallen back to about fair value. if you trim them over decades, this is where they should be. they were vastly higher because of this, because of the tis torsion. >> exactly. >> i accept your assertion that fannie mae and freddie mac and the government's lifting of capital requirements was at the center of the price distortion that then creates this fiasco. there seems to be a second variable which is the credit default swap market being off exchange, in the dark and allowing this creation of credit, consumer credit and other versions of credit, in an environment very similar to fannie and freddie which is little or no capital required,

invent money and you make money. is that fair? >> credit default swaps, insurance against debt, no one knows what they own. you can't look at a bank balance sheet and figure out what the risk is and at the very least they should be clearly disclosed. >> understood. this conversation -- and you understand why i've got 27,000 people to get money out of politics in a single day. the fundamental question everybody has, professor, is where do we go from here. if we had a government that wanted to solve this problem and re-establish capital requirements and a transparent functioning housing market, where would they begin? >> in our book we call the three stages. stage one, you have to close down fannie mae and freddie mac. >> when you do that, how do you create available home lending? >> so the stage two is you -- you've got to become to wean mortgage finance off the housing market, so you can't do that overnight because of the current situation. it will take about a decade so slowly and surely. >> where is the money going to come from?

>> a partnership between the government. >> over a decade. >> and you're left with this mortgage system. >> with capital requirements. >> with capital requirements. >> and a public swaps market. >> needs to be well regulated. >> just needs capital requirements. i just need one regulation. >> and most important because you've taken away the subsidies from the housing sector, you're going to get capital allocated to more productive uses in the economy and we're going to have higher growth if you do that. >> in order to get to the professor's destination, which makes sense to me, agree with that, very achievable, we have to resolve the current debt load created as a result of the easy money that was created about no capital requirements. that's the homeowner. that's in the swaps market. that's where you talk about debt restructuring a la world war ii, a la the brady bonds. any way through this, henry, that's not an actual debt restructuring? >> well, certainly there is time. you pay down the debt gradually. you hope you grow your way out

of the problem. it's going to be tough. nobody can spend. >> and the capital is all trapped in poverty and all the rest of it. >> and you have record low interest rates. unfortunately, a lot of folks that you talked about in the beginning who are trapped can't refinance because no one will lend against the house because they owe more on the house than it's worth so the government is talking about stepping in and refinancing those loans which at least reduces the burden on that debt. >> it's still a political solution, not an actual solution. >> the actual market situation, hate to say it, it is to get folks out of houses they can't afford. move them on without destroying their lives. restructure their own financial situation and move on. >> i would agree that that's half of the market solution, that the other half is to acknowledge that money printing is the mathematical equivalent of debt cancellation. as soon as i can invent money at the federal reserve per se i'm saying there is no longer capital, and once i can print money i can cancel debt and the best place to start cancelling debt is in the portion of the credit default swap market that

exists above and beyond its useful value for underlying insurance for debt, reclassify those third-party swaps as online gaming and cancel it. >> and then come up with some capital. >> and we'll call china for that. china has all sorts of capital. henry, a pleasure. professor, thanks so much. thanks for helping us see the light. coming up on "the d.r. show," the debt super committee at work slashing away in secret. why must everything on capitol hill, our government, be so hush hush and influenced directly, by, yes, money? we'll ask the mega panel. plus, happy 150th. the author who says living that long will soon be a piece of cake. and, again, later in the show, we'll tell you exactly what you can do to take a stand to get money out of politics so we can get into housing and everything else, sooner rather than later. that just ahead.

an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement available only with liberty mutual auto insurance, if your car's totaled, we give you the money for a car one model year newer. to learn more, visit us today. responsibility. what's your policy? helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. just having some tender chicken and some tasty noodles. let's see...south western vegetables...60 calories. ya' know those jeans look nice. they do? yup. so you were checking me out? yup. [ male announcer ] progresso. 40 soups 100 calories or less.

o whoa. whoa. how do you top great vacations? whoa. getting twice the points on great vacations. whoa! use chase sapphire preferred and now get two times the points on travel, and two times the points on dining and no foreign transaction fees. whoa! chase sapphire preferred. a card of a different color. apply now at chasesapphire.com/preferred yeah, let's check out the horses under the hood! show me the carfax. show me the carfax. horsepower, foxpower, same thing. just show me the carfax. before you buy a used car, get a carfax vehicle history report. see accidents and service reported to carfax and a price based on the car's history. ask your dealer or go to carfax.com. just say, show me the carfax.

all right. here at "the d.r. show" we're mobilizing, as you know, against what i like to call the green car tan. a rather impenetrable wall of money that surrounds the totality of american policy making preventing all of us from engaging in what i believe is the debate america deserves. i don't know how to solve our problems but i sure would like to talk about it. we've launched a petition getmoneyout.com and we've launched our campaign for a constitutional amendment yesterday. and today i am happy to report that in 24 hours more than

28,000 of you have already signed up to join the very simple effort to get money out. even our own congress has noticed. last night we got into a twitter conversation with congresswoman donna edwards who has her own constitutional amendment. cheers, she wrote. billions must deband this before congress has courage to act against moneyied interests, she tweeted. we know, congressman, we know, and that's why we're demanding an unrelenting organizing force, a massive one, over the next year around the single goal that representative edwards and many others will join us on "the d.r. show" to discuss. she will be here on friday n.minutes we'll remind you how to engage in this. meantime, let's actually discuss where the policy stands with the mega panel, despite the distorting impacts of money and the entire thing, but it does lead us nicely into the conversation. supposedly straight talking new

jersey governor chris christie gave his least direct answer yet for calls to get into the presidential race. >> my answer to you is just this. i thank you for what you are saying, and i take it in and i'm listening to every word of it and feeling it, too. >> while he sounds like an authentic jersey guy, responding to his people, he may really be just yet another example of money and politics with the wealthy elite and business execs finally being the ones to tip him into the race. look no further than billionaire home depot founder ken langone as one of the few trading phone calls to try to make christie a more theoretically serious candidate. our wednesday mega panel, woerkt editorial editor jonathan capehart, reuters u.s. editor rob cox and chrystia freeland. the fact of the matter is everybody does not like this president. they do not like the republican field. 80% of the country does not approve of the overall congress.

they don't trust the political leadership in this country. it is possible, one, for it to be more trustworthy. the game is if you think i'm crazy, look at him or her and then you'll really know what crazy is. that's good for a short-term power dynamics, jonathan, but obviously not a path of resolution for this country. >> no, no, no. the path of resolution is to have a president and 535 members of congress who see what the right thing is to do, realize that it is a long-term prospect and push forward. which is not going to happen. chris christie is playing a very interesting game. >> go on. >> chris christie is playing a very interesting game. remember, he gave probably one of the most definitive comments saying he wasn't running for president. he said must i commit suicide to convince you we're not running? and now we see this happening, the little voices from his head, moneyed interests saying you

should do this, but remember this. you're only as popular -- the day before he says he's running is the most popular day of his life as candidate for the president of the united states. >> that's exactly right. i think if he's smart he won't run and i think that's why he hasn't thrown his hat into the ring yet. i think he's probably being tested but he should watch what has happened to rick perry very closely. >> exactly. >> very attractive now because he's in the out there, but i think frankly he may not be ready for primetime yet and i think he probably knows that just because it's -- it's an incredibly tough field. >> the presidential -- >> look, i really just want to see those guys wrestle, rick per perry. that would be the best political theater. seriously, i think what he's recognized and a lot of people have recognized is having a republican governor of a blue state is kind of what you need right now. i mean, this is something that will bring the country together, who has shown the ability to do that, and the only guy on the panel, as it were, on the

republican field is -- is romney, and he's not very attractive, so, look, he's -- like a football player which i assume he was. he knows where to run and when to run. >> chris christie does? >> chris christie does. >> i think he's very tormented right now. i think his brain is saying don't do it. >> his rational mind. >> saying this is very dangerous. you can be destroyed by this, and you know what? >> his ego. >> 2016 is not that far away. >> exactly. >> and he can win. i mean, the truth is if he can win another term after cutting aggressively in a whole state he'll show he could potentially be the guy to bring the country together. >> last word. >> that's what he really needs to do, but also christie and anyone else thinking about running for president they must realize that the presidential stage, running for president, is unlike any stage anywhere in the world. they may have run for mayor, run

for governor several times and won. >> yeah. >> but it's nothing compared to running for president. >> and some of the qualities that make you very attractive right now the day before can be very dangerous the day after because what makes you pop and make you buzz as a governor of new jersey can suddenly make you very unpresidential and some unreliable. >> look what happened to howard dean. >> or rick perry. >> i mean, running, becoming the governor of texas, a republican in a very republican state is different. >> doesn't play in vermont. >> yeah. let's talk about the government that exists right now that everybody is talking about is aspiring to have more influence over. most notably the super committee which is this sort of consolidated power base that is to come up with deficit cutting which on the one hand i look at which seems to be a very practical and useful idea. smaller room and more people talking. on the other hand, i look at the role of money and politics and say hang on a sec, they got a

smaller list of people to buy to make sure this happens. it's easier to buy, how many people on this committee, 14, 16, 20, something like that? it's a lot easier to buy them than it is to buy 535 people and suddenly i become nauseous. truly, because now i'm like hang on. we've got the money in politics problem, and we've tightened the width of the pipe so that i only have a smaller dimension to cut off to -- with the green curtain, to steal my own phrase. look at 41 million in the can here, jonathan. >> well, hearing what you say, it seems as though the super committee is caught in a vice. on the one side you have the moneyed interests who see that they have this small crew of people who they can influence and work their will. on the other side though, and i know you're concerned about the secrecy involved with the super committee, we've seen time and time again when these groups like this, when things leak out. >> not even the secrecy, i see the risk of that. what concerns me is i lack

confidence that there are ideas in that room that are outside of the talking points of republican/democrat 1990s. >> sure, sure. >> and we need new ideas here. >> what i'm saying is the super committee could be caught in this vice where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. >> got to get the money out. >> i would look at it slightly different. there's two ways of looking at the problem america faces. one is that the popular screamers have gotten hold and if the elites can get together, all smart players, have a shared point of view and if only they can get together, they actually know the sensible, the right thing to do, and if they could just get together, drown out the populist voices they would reach the right solution. the other way to look at what's happening in america is america is genuinely really divided and there are genuine differences in points of view about what

america should do. >> what's the division in 80% disapproval for the congress, 60% disapproval for the democratic party, 60% dis'previously fdis a disapproval for the republican party and the concept of division as a thought process which has been pervasive in this country for decades now, going back to at least ronald reagan, if not richard nixon, there's a whole concept of split and fight has been definitive for the past, certainly say since ice haufr -- since eisenhower. i can't fight with rob cox. i've got to figure out how rob cox and i are going to build a road or whatever it is, and then at this point we are ignoring the single group of people that understand that there is a system in place, not just the money in politics, that there's a system of decision-making in place that is making decisions not based on the pursuit of aligned interests or shared goals but is making decisions

based on self-preservation exclusively, whatever the castle or format may be. >> that dissatisfaction that you point to, you're saying if you had transparency in this process. >> that's not what i'm saying. >> if you had transparency on the super commit. >> but that's not what i'm saying, but, yes, if you did have that that could be interesting. >> if you have the transparency, open meetings, i think that's probably too far. that's seeing how the sausage is made. i'm not sure everyone wants to see that. >> i agree. >> it's the policy itself. >> open meetings aren't that crazy, rob. the way canada balanced its budgets was by having a year of open meetings across the country. >> on public television. >> how do you do it? >> on public tv and people screaming at the finance ministry. >> and they debated it. >> but national questions. >> british parliament. we're here to take all comers. >> we need to have a national debate because america hasn't agreed yet on what you need to do. >> right. well, it's interesting that we get to talk about it ourselves. what a privilege to even show up

with a new structure like this, with the amount of money flying around and the stakes that they are. wonderful to sit with you guys. jonathan, thank you, rob, thank you and chrystia thank you. straight ahead, those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. adding to the mega panel, our specialist on what american history can teach us about our nation-building efforts and getting out of iraq and afc now. [ male announcer ] one-hundred-nineteen data points.

this is what we can gather from an ordinary crash test dummy. two million data points. this is what we can gather from a lexus crash test genius. [ engine revving ] when you pursue industry-leading safety, you don't just engineer breakthroughs in simulation technology, you engineer amazing. ♪ better deposit that before you get hurt! [ echoing ] hurt! hey, wha-- [ camera clicks ] oh, state farm bank's pocket agent. it lets you deposit checks right from your phone. you just shoot, send, done! boom. give it up! [ male announcer ] another reason more people stay with state farm.

get to a better state. you feel it working, so you know it's working. and that means you're good to go, for whatever the day brings. new crest complete. unlike ordinary toothpaste, you feel a deeper clean. it's a signal that tells you your whole mouth is clean. you're also protected. because most of life happens outside the bathroom. feel it working, know you're covered. with new crest complete, life opens up when you do.

something flying under the radar of most had we discuss all the things we do discuss. the obama administration is amid the expansion of a rather controversial, as we all know, u.s. drone program in the middle east. it's intended to stretch across the entire arabian peninsula and into the horn of africa. this has been characterized and can be certainly seen as a

positive development to getting troops off the ground. you create this web in the sky and you have fewer resources. that's the positive narrative, if you will, around this idea. the "washington post" reported that the u.s. is already setting up secret bases for the unmanned surveillance web over the middle east. here's the downside. it's the latest in a string of moves to use our tox money and our resources to further entrench us in other nation's affairs and blur the lines of national sovereignty. a specialist says though nation-building may be in our dna, nobody has created more problems for themselves or others by intervening in distance nations than america. joining us is a history professor from the university of texas and the strauss center for international security. quit a credentials list you've got there, professor, also the author of "liberty's surest guardian." i'm sure that would be america.

>> usually, yes. >> at least in america's mind. what is the core thesis of your book, and the how does it apply to our current expenditures and investments in the middle east? >> my argument, dylan, is the united states has been consistently trying to do nay nation-building for 200 years and have a very mixed record. the problem is that those of us today who look at those issues don't understand those records and we have false expectations of what should come of our nation-building efforts. >> elaborate on that. in other words, what do you believe is the political expectation from nation-building and where does it fall short most reliably? >> the exactation that many people have is that we can go into society like iraq and bring our goodwill, bring our money and treeoops and reform them an leave quickly. that's never worked. we've made a positive difference in many societies and done that

over the long term when we've committed to the society and done that when we've got the kind of resources in that are demanded. it cannot be done in the short term and cannot be done on the cheap, and we have to decide if we're really committed to do it somewhere in afghanistan to do it right. if we're not committed and we don't have the resources, which i don't think we do right now, then we need to get out. >> rob cox, what are you actually proposeing? are you saying that we have to be all in, in other words, full occupation, or we shouldn't even bother? i'm kind of confused. >> sure. great question, rob. i'm not saying we should get involved in full occupation in a kind of overmilitarized setting. i'm saying just the opposite. i'm saying nation-building involves learning about a society and involves making a civilian commitment over the long term, and it means saying that if we're going into a place like afghanistan, we're not going to give ourselves artificial time lines because we're not going to send in troops because that's the easiest or drones. we need to invest in

infrastructure. >> the question i was -- in a place like afghanistan, you have to have as a basic sort of fundamental basic, you have to have security. >> absolutely. >> a rule of law. i'm not sure how you do that without -- by just sending in civilians, you know, until you do that. >> no, of course not. you need to do it as a combined civilian military operation which is what my argument is and you need to do it, rob in, a way that involves multiple actors. one of the problems that we confront is we've become too depend ant upon a few particular individuals, like a hamid karzai in afghanistan today. we need to diversify the number of people we work with. we can do that. we have done that, but we're often too ignorant and too unprepared to do that. >> jeremi, how about genocide? what's the right answer if you see genocide happening somewhere? maybe you don't have that commitment to rebuild that country. maybe you don't think that country can become a spits land, but, you know, is there a moral

obligation to intervene, and i'm thinking of rwanda and of bosnia which i think was a direct response to the failure to intervene in rwanda and final life libya today in. >> sure. well, i think genocide does raise a certain moral responsibility. we need to do everything we can that we think can help the people of that so side within the context of our capabilities, and one of our capabilities is our own will power. are we willing to allocate the resources necessary to do the job right? if we're not then we might in fact be creating more harm than good. >> what i'm wondering about is how do you define doing the job right. can just stopping the genocide be good enough, or if you don't think america is going to be committed for 20 years, should you just not get involved in the first place? >> well, i think if we can stop the genocide and we really believe we can stop the genocide in a way that's effective in the short run, then we should get involved, yes. so if in rwanda there were opportunities which i think there probably were to stop the guys running around with

machetes to stop from killing people, we probably should have gone in and done it if we could have done it in a way to achieve thaten. the problem is in a place like bosnia, once you get involved, with the existence of the serbian army on the ground and the russians in place as well, it becomes a much more complex operation, not as easy as it looks at first sight. >> jonathan capehart. could you talk as dylan said in the intro the expansion of the drone program by the united states, and it got basically got started there in that region because the united states is at war against an enemy that doesn't really know any borders, so how does what you write about fit with what the united states is doing with the expansion of its drone program? >> a great question and connects to what rob was asking to. the use of military is a critical part of nation-building, and i support the use of the drones, especially in the area around the afghanistan and pakistan region, because as i write in the book it's been an effective way of disarming and forcing al qaeda to limit its operations,

and so it's been effective attribute of what could be a larger process of creating stability and a better political environment in that area, but we shouldn't overgeneralize. i'm very worried, though certainly not an expert on the use of the drones in places like somalia and yemen. in a place where we have no major presence on the ground, are we not simply just creating more enemies by using these drones in those areas. i'm very, very worried about that. >> stimulating conversation. good luck with the book. "liberty's surest guardian" is the title. thank you, professor. >> thank you. >> and thanks to you guys for being here today for the conversation. appreciate it. >> we love it, right? >> will you help me get money out? do you think that ave lost my mind? rob and i have worked since since what, i was 22 or 23 years old. >> yeah. >> i've known you for a while. >> i'm younger than you guys. >> much younger. >> of course you are. >> you three have known me for 10, 15 years give or take in many contexts. do you believe i've lost my

mind? >> no. >> you lost your mind years ago, but on this one, dylan, i don't think so. i think a lot of people are going to support you. >> even politicians, right? because it's a real pain in the neck to have to be constantly on the hook to donors. >> they have to spend half of their lives raising money. we're here to help them. >> you'll have to lead them. >> thank you, guys. jonathan capehart, rob cox, chrystia freeland, how you can join the more than 30,000 americans who have begun work to get money out of politics as a central issue in the 2012 elections. [ male announcer ] in blind taste tests, even ragu users chose prego.

prego?! but i've been buying ragu for years. [ thinking ] i wonder what other questionable choices i've made? [ '80s dance music plays ] [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego. that is better than today.

since 1894, ameriprise financial has been working hard for their clients' futures. never taking a bailout. helping generations achieve dreams. buy homes. put their kids through college. retire how they want to. ameriprise. the strength of america's largest financial planning company. the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you, one-to-one. together, for your future. ♪ helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. today i own 165 wendy's restaurants. and i get my financing from ge capital. but i also get stuff that goes way beyond banking. we not only lend people money, we help them save it. [ junior ] ge engineers found ways to cut my energy use. [ cheryl ] more efficient lighting helps junior stay open later...

[ junior ] and serve more customers. so you're not just getting financial capital... [ cheryl ] you're also getting human capital. not just money. knowledge. [ junior ] ge capital. they're not just bankers... we're builders. [ junior ] ...and they've helped build my business. skrishs canned. candidates hate raising money, the system is awash in the money and i can tell you as the greedy bastard who used to spend the money on the

advertising campaign, 90% of it is wasted, we don't need it. >> those fireworks as we launched or get money out constitutional amendment, campaign for digital wave tuesday here on "the d.r. show" and on the front of "the huffington post" and the debt committee forced to meet in secret to avoid special interest blow back, today we've discussed endless influence of money on our political debate. money and politics is like a suicide vest. of money on every politician. if any one politician alone even attempts to remove, it all the other politicians exploit that decision, and the courageous so surely loses their job. at least 94% of the time. the only way to remove all the suicide money vests is if we take them all off at once from the outside in with a digital wave. everybody on three, if you will.

as promised, here's what you can do to help build the movement. simply go to getmoneyout.com and add your name. once you have done that, think to yourself, one other person that you can get to sign up so that every time you sign up you are doubling the number with your own signature and that of one other person. we have now crossed 31,000, and, again, in a single day. you can also text the word sign, s-i-g-n to 9177206688. alone we are useless. i'm useless, you're useless. it's a waste, but together we can make money and politics the central issue in the 2012 presidential elections. november 2012. the clock is ticking, and it is for that reason that we must invest in this petition now. if you're looking for an update

on signatures and where we're go, all the rest of it, please check out our latest blog day two on why this is so critical. it's called building a digital wave, and it's up right now on the front of dylanratigan.com and "the huffington post." again, critical to this whole thing is expanding those who know what we're talking about. we take a moment here, and we return with an author who says the man or woman who will live to 150 years old has already been born. you a 50 percent annual bonus. so you earn 50 percent more cash. if you're not satisfied with 50% more cash, send it back! i'll be right here, waiting for it. who wouldn't want more cash? [ insects chirping ] i'll take it. i'll make it rain up in here. [ male announcer ] the new capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? sorry i'll clean this up. shouldn't have made it rain.

and a family mobile plan. uh... um... [ bling! ] four score... [ bling! ] ...and seven years ago... [ bling! ] i kissed emily costa... eww! [ male announcer ] unlimited talk and text, only $45 a month, add more lines only $25 each. plus other low prices every day on everything. save money. live better. walmart. add listerine® total care for more complete oral care. ♪ it works in six different ways to restore enamel... strengthen teeth... freshen breath... help prevent cavities... and kill bad breath germs for a whole mouth clean. so go beyond the brush with listerine® total care, the most complete mouthwash. now get all the benefits... without the alcohol. new listerine® total care zero.

it'd be easier to compare. you think these all cost about the same. they all give safe drivers a discount. but what's this? only allstate gives safe drivers something more. a bonus check every six months you drive accident-free. so what's it going to be? eenie, meanie, miney... or more. shop less. get more. make one call to an allstate agent. [ female announcer ] call allstate now and you'll also get a free lifetime membership in good hands roadside assistance.

you're gonna have the hottest car on the block. [ airplane engine rumbles ] show me the carfax. yeah, show me the carfax. we...we ran out. what? just show me the carfax. before you buy a used car, get a carfax vehicle history report. see accidents and service reported to carfax and a price based on the car's history. ask your dealer or go to carfax.com. just say, show me the carfax.

you are too late. my blood now flows through your veins. you will live through the centuries to come as i have lived. >> you will no longer have to get bitten by a good friend there, count dracula, to live forever. or at least that seems like -- or what would seem like forever in today's terms. our next guest says that because of developing regenerative medicine, both in slowing the aging process and repairing tissue for those who are aging, that's already taking place in hospitals and labs around the world, that living to 150 is already within our biological reach. just as living to be 85 was thought to be a rarity at the turn of the century. we are now here in the 21st century on the precipice of redefining what it means to be

old yet again. with that, however, will come serious changes, obviously to our lives, including our finances over a 150-year life span. our marriages and relationships and child rearing, our faith. here to explain technology writer for tech newsworld sonya ericsson, the author of "100 plus, how the coming of longevity will change everything from careers and relationships, to family and death." before we get into this from a relationship standpoint, how confident are you in the science that you're basing your premise on? >> the science looks incredibly good, and one of the reasons i wanted to write this book is i don't think a lot of people are aware, maybe they see headlines here and there, but i don't think people are aware of the kind of technologies that are really going to change our world. there's an entire field called tissue engineering which allows for the creation of brand new human organs made out of your

own adult stem cells, so if you need a new trachea that can be done today. >> sure. it's not a problem. grab me a heart. >> exactly. >> that's one. they can do that. what's the other? >> it's been done in humans which is very exciting. >> yes. >> and then there's another one called gene therapy which allows scientists to tweak genes for all sorts of different reasons. in lab animals they have been able to tweak genes to allow us to -- to allow lab animals to live longer younger. >> so one version is i repair your organs as you age. the other version is i slow down the clock on your -- on the aging process. >> exactly. exactly. >> all right. >> and it can be done in lab animals. humans have the same type of pathways. >> so for those skeptics. >> it's promising. >> pay attention. you're saying that the implication now is revolutionary to everything. most notably it would seem to be

the financial implications of this obviously, and the only thing would i say more notable than that it would be the marital and family implications of let's say 150-year life span. that's what you wrote the book about. >> yes, what happens after we can live much longer and healthier lives, and as you say. >> and what was your answer, i'm curious. >> well, it's a long answer. it's a big book. one thing is that the economy will change, right. nobody will retire at 65 anymore and nobody will want to because they will still be healthy. >> got 100 years to go. >> exactly. >> give or take. >> give or take, exactly, so people will be working longer and be productive longer, and that should actually generate more wealth. in terms of families. >> yeah. >> you know, marriage will mean something entirely different. >> what? how so? >> being married to somebody until death do you part, if you get married. >> let's play a little game. death do you part is the marital structure. if we were crowmagdon men it

would be until 18, if we were renaissance, michelangelo, all the wonderful art coming out of the dark ages, very optimistic time in its weird way we'd live until 30. >> yeah. >> america in 1850, civil war america, all this, 43. today sitting here, this is if you're born today, the expectancy is 78, is that correct, that's the number that's on the page? >> right. >> if you are born today your expectancy is 78 years, all things in, is that correct? >> right. >> the developed world in 2300 at 101 and let's say by 2500 you're working 150. >> sure. >> what -- do you get married older? who raises the kids? do you still have kids in your 20s and 30s and 40s shall we

say? do you look for a younger husband or wife in your 140s, like i've got to find somebody in my 120s because, you know, i'm going to live a long time? how does this work? >> right. those are questions that i looked into in the family chapter of the book, and essentially what i did is went back and said what happened the last time we doubled life expectancy from 43 in 1850 to around 80 years today, and what happened was that women -- well, both women and men start getting married later. the age limit has been going up and up over time and women start to have children at older ages. i've got a chart in the book that shows first-time births to mothers over 40, and that has been growing over time. >> at the same time other new businesses, away from marriage and family, i would see that there's a whole new economy that would emerge that we can't even

imagine. >> right. there will be people alive who wouldn't have been alive before, and that's a brand new market segment, right, and i also think that stages of life will change, and because of that markets will change as well. so right now we have retirement as a chunk of -- large chunk of time at the end of life where you're supposed to just go and relax and it's leisure time, but i think that that might change as we live longer, that maybe retirement will be redefined as periods of time in our life where we take time off to go get re-educated because we want to try a different career. >> take ten years off and go to asia just to take a decade in asia. >> sure. >> you're going to live to 160 anyway. >> and that could be the new definition of retirement, and because of that markets will change because there will be all these different things that people will be doing but they are not doing today. >> can we make it to 200? >> eventually. i'm not sure that will happen during my lifetime. >> oh, no. >> but i think eventually, sure.

>> you're an optimistic person, and i like that. the conversation will be getting bigger and not smaller for sure, and thank you so much for establishing a point of view in this issue. thank you. >> thanks so much. coming up on "hardball," chris matthews on what chris christie and sarah palin have in common but next a rant for all you cynics out there. proof that in our country's past we can get money out of politics. we're america's natural gas and here's what we did today: supported nearly 3 million steady jobs across our country... ... scientists, technicians, engineers, machinists... ... adding nearly 400 billion dollars to our economy... we're at work providing power to almost a quarter of our homes and businesses... ... and giving us cleaner rides to work and school... and tomorrow, we could do even more. cleaner, domestic, abundant and creating jobs now.

we're america's natural gas. the smarter power, today. learn more at anga.us. i took some steep risks in my teens. i'd never ride without one now. and since my doctor prescribed lipitor, i won't go without it for my high cholesterol and my risk of heart attack. why kid myself? diet and exercise weren't lowering my cholesterol enough. now i'm eating healthier, exercising more, taking lipitor. numbers don't lie. my cholesterol's stayed down. lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke

in patients who have heart disease or risk factors for heart disease. it's backed by over 19 years of research. [ female announcer ] lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. [ man ] still love that wind in my face! talk to your doctor. don't kid yourself about the risk of heart attack and stroke. if lipitor's been working for you, stay with it. lipitor may be available for as little as $4 a month with the lipitor co-pay card. terms and conditions apply. learn more at lipitorforyou.com.

here now with the daily rant. >> thanks, dylan. dylan just launched a national program to get money out of politics, you know that, and like many reforms this constitutional amendment to change elections as we know hem has drawn a pretty typical response. people say great idea but that will never happen. people are skeptical because they don't expect the politicians to legislation against their self-interests. i get it. just look at the politicians in office right now. they won through a money-driven system so they don't want to change it. now that's all true as far as it goes, but if you consider the history, the fact is politicians have repeatedly been forced to pass tough reforms curbing money and politics. how? well, remember this? >> therefore, i shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. >> president nixon resigned over watergate, and the uprising against campaign corruption then

was so intense congress passed a bill for the first public financing of presidential campaigns in u.s. history. that same legislation also created the federal elections commission which regulates pains and public disclosures to this very day. now remember the mccain/feingold bill to curb soft money spending. that was never supposed to go anywhere. hillary clinton once called it the democratic party suicide bill and republicans didn't like it either. they controlled the white house and the house of representatives when it passed in 2002, but they had been on record against it. in fact, they weren't interested in getting there at all, but the enron scandal hit. all of a sudden people were again outraged over the influence that that company had over our government and suddenly a wave of anger pushed the bill on to the agenda. here's how one historian recounted the reversal. the enron scandal turned mccain/feingold from dead in the republican controlled house to

law. yes, reforming the financial structure of our democracy is hard and big changes don't usually happen all on their own but congress didn't write mccain/feingold after enron. the idea was there. people were already studying it and pushing it, and when a crisis hit they were ready. i'm not rooting far crisis but if another manmade corruption crisis does happen, there's no reason for it to go to waste. dylan. >> really, what you're talking about is the -- the natural dysfunction of our political structure, the abomination of policy-making, the lack of engagement from the politicians and the natural occurrence of those misaligned interests which creates problems is really just a catalyst to further grow the agenda to get money out. it's just evidence, and whether it was enron or whatever it is, and for me the skeptics, i think the very appropriate understandable skepticism, i think you have to look at this as a different point in time

simply because the same tools that gave us the credit default swap, the same tools that gave us deepwater oil drilling in the gulf, are available to us in spreading the message of that laser focus single principled agenda to get money out, and while the technology was key to the credit default swap or deep water oil drilling, it will also be of great benefit to us in experting our message with the electorate next year, i do believe. thank you for the evidence, ari. >> absolutely, dylan. >> that will do it for us. i'm dylan ratigan. "hardball" is up with chris matthews. before we go though, a quick update. we added, i don't know, 7,000, 8,000 signatures in the past hour. we've clicked 35,000. if you're free at all this evening, get the word out to get the money out at getmoneyout.com. crying for