i'll talk to you later, martin. >> thank you. >> show starts now. well, a good afternoon to you. nice to see you. a little rainy thursday. we're pretending it's london here in new york for the next couple of days. i'm dylan ratigan. and today's big stories, happy days are here again. at least that's what they would have us believe. overseas, a big debt deal for the eurozone, writing down 50% of the greek debt, which 100% of which will never be paid, at the same time, inventing, literally inventing, much like our own federal reserve at the european stability fund, $1 trillion new that came from i don't know where, nobody does, to fund the bailout of the foreign debt, is the sovereign debt, here in europe. meantime, here at home, numbers on our gross sovereign product have an accelerate. keep in mind, the gdp is a number that dates to the

depression era that simply numb measures the number of transactions in our country, but does not measure what those transaction is for. so a transaction that steals money is a equated to a transaction that creates value. in this instance, we're looking at extraction in this country, which looks like it's getting a little more busy. we've, of course, fired up the extraction machine again, using all of this invented money that's being funneled into our systems, the trillion dollars out of europe. and as evidenced by today's rally on wall street, up 340, the equity holders, the stock holders are happy, as they were after the '08 bailouts, as we continue to kick the can down the road, let the shareholders off the hook, and stick the taxpayers with the bills for an ongoing system that does not create growth or value, that simply collects rent from all of us for the use of our own money.

we start today with our thursday megapanel. karen, susan, and jimmy. jimmy, i was talking to martin bashir about this, for the debt restructuring specifically, and equating it to a game of pin the tail on the donkey, and the fact that no one could pin the tail on anything for so long, the fact that they could pin the tail on something was perceived to be a positive thing. are you encouraged or discouraged of the evidence of some debt restructuring and on the other hand, the invention of another $1 trillion to kick the can down the road in europe? >> i think it's actually brilliant, what the europeans are doing. they're going to take the esfs, which is their t.a.r.p. fund, right, and increase it to 1 trillion euros. and that money, where's it going to come from? china investment corps, private equity, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. okay, fine, it comes from there. and then what do you do? you've got to insure. who the hell's going to insure it? aig? i'm pretty sure there's been a

template for this not working. that's called the united states in 2008. so while it may kick the can down the road for greece right now, it sure as heck sucks for greece and the eurozone for the next four to five years. it's just -- this does nothing to solve their long-term, systemic problems, nor ours, frankly. >> and it's interesting, we're in a conversation earlier this week, susan, where more and more people were talking about the need for a third marshall plan. that randomly solving greece or randomly solving america or randomly solving portugal or italy, to jimmy's point, will not reconcile, because if you have a globally integrated system, it needs a globally integrated form of resolution. are you encouraged at all by the fact that at least there's talk about debt restructuring and growth in addition to talk of taxes and austerity, or am i, again, naive? >> no, i think if we're talking about it, that's great. but if the u.s. actually has to be part of getting it done,

we're in a lot of trouble. >> why? >> because no one's going to have the leadership to stand up and basically say, we're going to go global. we're not going to be the leaders of our own destiny. and that's going to be a hard pill for any politician to swallow, and frankly for the american public. >> karen, what do you think -- what is the feeling in washington, d.c., both in the democratic party -- it's sort of a silly question, because i recognize you neither speak for the democratic or the republican party, but what is your point of view relative to how they sort of perceive most of these recent events? >> well, i think people who are being honest with themselves are cautiously optimistic at the gdp number. i think everybody expects, you know, one number does not mean that we're out of the woods yet, but i think people -- and it was just nice to have some positive news. i literally jumped out of bed when i saw on my blackberry there was good news, we had good news. i think the republicans, it's going to sound mean, i'm sure they were disappointed to see those good numbers, because they

want to keep -- you know, the longer they keep the economy tanking, the more they can blame it on barack obama. obviously, politically speaking, the white house was pleased to see those numbers, because, again, a stable economy is going to be real important politically. although, just to something that susan said, and actually, dylan, this is a question for you as well. as i understand it, what's going on in europe, we're not quite out of the woods just yet. this is greece, but -- >> we have not even -- we are -- we have pinned the tail on the poster where there's a donkey and we are celebrating like we've pinned the tail on the donkey. in other words, the debt issue exists. it is unresolved. it is being resolved by raising this money, from unknown origin. but why we're creating the can debt, the way we're crediting the debt has not been resolved. and the fact of the matter is, the person with all the leverage in europe right now, and i don't know what you think about this, jimmy, but it looks like the

person with all the leverage in europe right now is the greek prime minister, who is being told what to do by angela merkel, when the fact of the matter is greece has the leverage in this, as does italy and portugal, because they're the ones that can say, we won't give you any money, and that will force a total banking collapse, and it's obvious that papandreou was able to get 50% off with that kind of a threat. >> they had a $3300 billion eur debt and knocked off a billion of it. that's a remarkly good return on the money. >> that's the thing, as long as you have a financial system that is designed to manufacture debt as opposed to invest in the creation of value, you're always going to be doing this sort of thing. the panel will be back a little bit later. i want to bring in freshman republican congressman, david swikert. david, do you feel that we've now solved our problems and can go home? >> heavens, no, but it's good to

see europe putting together an articulated plan. as one of those people who flew out on his own money to visit the ecb, i have a friend who works there, and then spent a week in athens, greece is a long way, even from with a 50% cut, from being solvent, considering how much they have to borrow every single month swrjust to p for their government structure. >> i guess that's what frustrates people like myself and others who look at the math, and it's obvious that, as much as i would indict efforts at austerity and tax increases, not because i think that cutting spending or raising taxes are inherently good or bad, but because the scale of the problem cannot be resolved by taxation, austerity, or a 50% haircut in greece, we are in a situation where there are hundreds of trillions of dollars the in the swaps market, for which there is no collateral or nobody even knows where that is. and i just don't understand, congressman, where do we have to

go to end up in a conversation with the committee for economic development and other major ngos to have a real, serious conversation among serious men and women about a third marshall plan? >> well, dylan, i've got to tell you. my stninstinct is, we are far beyond the capacity of any ngo out there. what europe is basically trying to avoid is a cascade effect. but think of this. by june, what is it, european banks are going to have to be holding 9% tier one capital. that's a lot of money. they're going to find somewhere to actually carry on their books. so i'm elated to see this, but i'm also a little concerned about the devil being in the details. will they be able to get to that type of reserves? >> i think we all are. but you didn't answer my question, which is, is not the only -- how do you resolve this without a marshall plan? >> i have to disagree with you on the marshall plan, because at some point, who are you going to turn to finance on it? >> nobody. in other words -- >> yeah, we're up to our

eyeballs in debt. so is europe. the middle east is literally on flames. so in many ways, we're going to have to find some mechanic to create economic growth and some rational spending policy, is that's going to mean dealing with the reality of our demographics problems and our entitlement problems. >> but isn't the mechanism of growth, which we all agree is the only way we're really going to solve these problems, what we saw in the marshall plan, which was a debt forgiveness for germany after the war, so that they could build an economy and germany that could grow, debt forgiveness in japan that allowed japan to grow, and the haircut was taken by the banks, who did not receive the repayment of the german and japanese can debt, and what you would do in this situation is you would do the same thing. you would basically ask goldman and jpmorgan and deutsche bank and sach gen in exchange for a

new system of growth that moves forward. >> dylan, i'm elated you're talking about this, but on this one, you and i are going to disagree. if you step back to the marshall plan, it was massive amounts of money to rebuild capital infrastructure, to rebuild manufacturing capacity. >> yes. >> in europe right now, it's not about capacity to produce things. >> but the marshall plan was also canceling -- before they invested in rebuilding, what they said was, we're going to cancel germany's debt, because we refused to cancel germany's debt of world war i and it led to world war ii, so the debt cancellation seems to be a precursor to the growth, i guess is what i'm saying. >> where you and i are still one off, even in the debt cancellation, you have not dealt with the systemic issues of particularly in europe, but we also have this problem here and japan has it, our demographic entitlement obligations. you and i balance the budget today in the united states or even in germany, let alone spain or greece, the next day, because of the numbers of folks in the baby boom bubble, you're out of balance the next day.

so it's much more than debt forgiveness. it is going to require restructuring of these obligations all around the world. >> yeah. and i suspect, actually, we're saying similar things from different perspectives. i appreciate -- >> yeah. >> go ahead. >> the whole discussion of international deleveraging is a fascinating one, but incredibly complicated. >> and that really seems to be where marshall plans come from. whether it's that one or another one. and that's why you have them. congressman, a pleasure. thanks for the time. >> always enjoy it. >> all right, david squooirkt. coming up here, an iraq war veteran who survived two tours, you may have heard about this, now clinging to life after what happened to him at the hands of the oakland police at an occupy protest. when are we going to end america's longest war so that we can focus on fighting the economic injustice in our own country? all of this preventing, of course, the debate we deserve. well, today we unveil the latest attempt to get money out of politics, so we can start that

debate. i'm excited to welcome john bonofaz to the show. plus, if everything that's going on seems like a bad dream, brace yourself for more. you could get abducted by aliens the next time you hit the head. [ male announcer ] to the 5:00 a.m. scholar. the two trains and a bus rider. the "i'll sleep when it's done" academic. for 80 years, we've been inspired by you. and we've been honored to walk with you

to help you get where you want to be. ♪ because your moment is now. let nothing stand in your way. learn more at keller.edu.

well, secretary of state hillary clinton today facing a barrage of questions about our relationship with afghanistan, understandably, not to mention pakistan. this was all at a house hearing. the big talker, you probably heard this, afghan president hamid karzai's recent statement, "if fighting starts between pakistan and the u.s., we are

beside pakistan." with friends like these, you know how the saying goes. here's the secretary's diplomatic response. >> what karzai was talking about was the long history of cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan. it was, you know, both taken out of context and misunderstood. >> are afghanistan and pakistan reliable allies? >> well, first of all, president karzai and i had a very productive meeting when i was in kabul last week. we are making progress on a lot of issues. >> mind you, we've spent nearly $500 billion there so far. we continue to fund both sides of the war. meanwhile, economic injustice and expanded breach of all sorts of principles of fairness continue in our own country, which is why an increasingly large number of military veterans have joined the occupy movement.

i suggest you check out occupy marines, they are standing with the 99%. now, that participation took a dangerous turn for an iraq war veteran who survived two tours on behalf of the united states, but now finds himself in critical condition after a police projectile fired at the protesters two nights ago in oakland fractured his skull. joining us now is another iraq war veteran and current interim chairman of vo vets. we're also joined by colonel anthony shaver who has extensive knowledge about conditions around the region. i'm going to try to clip through a couple of different subjects, because i don't always get you guys together. ashland, i want to start on the issue in oakland. it's very clear that when you have unarmed people peacefully protesting, that where the opponent is armed, and there was a u.s. marine who went to times square, there was a video on youtube that was very powerful, where basically he was saying to

the police, this is not a war zone, using a gun or a weapon against somebody who is unarmed does not make you tough. that a u.s. marine does not consider it to be tough to be violent towards an unarmed person. and i'm interested in both your perspective of the police relationship with protests in this country and then, obviously, the specifics of the veterans' relationship with the protest. >> well, first of all, it's tragic, what happened to that marine out in california, and i hope that he ends up being okay. i don't know all the specifics of what happened in that incident, but i agree with your sentiment that our law enforcement officials, particularly our domestic law enforcement officials, because they have arms and because they're in a position of power, should be excessively careful in dealing with protesters, and particularly the occupy wall street movement, which i think thus far has been almost universally peaceful throughout the country and throughout the world, even. so we should be very careful

about the amount of force that's used, or for what purposes it's used. so wile i don't know the specifics of that incident, i hope that he's okay and i hope that it's sort of a warning or at least an issue that other law enforcement officials throughout the country will look at as they're judging the amount of force necessary. >> tony, your thoughts on use of force in a civilian environment against unarmed individuals relative to use of force in a theater environment. >> in a nutshell, kudos to the marines for channeling ghandi. my goodness here, that's the idea. we're trying to stay things, no matter how you feel about the protests, the fact is, there was no intent to use or threat to use violence, so the idea of using force against someone with no justification is unconscionable in any circumstance. this is across the board. >> and no soldier who serves the united states would ever presume to feel powerful because they were armed against someone who was not.

>> absolutely. >> am i wrong -- go ahead, sorry. >> i was going to say, along that line, these guys, believe me, marines, i would not want to be -- have a marine upset with me, because frankly, with a weapon or not, they could kick, you know -- >> they're tough. >> so they were very sedate in this case, and this is what's wrong about it. you know, i could understand if there was a reaction to force, this is not the case here, though. >> let's talk about the war itself. and this is maybe an outrageous statement on my part, but i've heard hamid karzai say, if it came down to it, i would be with pakistan, and everyone's outraged and how dare he say this, it's terrible. but if you're in hamid karzai's shoes, are you going to be with the country that's immediately next to you or be with the country that's half a world away that invaded you. it didn't strike me as that shocking a comment, that the guy running the blue country in this

map says, if it comes down to it,time going to work with the guy running the yellow country right next to me over pretty much anybody else, if both of us are threatened. is that -- am acrazy? >> well, dylan, let me say right up front, we continue to misunderstand the nature of these countries. each country is out for its own self-interest, and we continue, and frankly, secretary clinton's testimony today was a continuation of this policy of wishful thinking. pakistan will continue to do what it thinks is best for it to do. the hakani network is part of their effort. hamid karzai is doing what he thinks is best for him. they don't care about our interest. frankly, dylan, by 2003, we met our obligations to achieve victory. now all we're trying to do is insinuate an artificial circumstance, a border in which -- the hakani network doesn't recognize a border, and yet we're trying to insinuate

our perspective on them. >> they say that people change the way they're thinking when they have the revelation of new information or a new understanding. what do you think we could all understand a little bit better about that war that might help more of us understand a different way to look at it. >> well, i think mr. karzai's comments emphasize how complex this region is, and just how much lengthier and more costly this entire venture has been for our country than was originally sort of told to us. i mean, mr. karzai, he's got his own domestic policy concerns, and that's why he makes outrageous and unpredictable statements like that, as he's done before, but frankly, we are so invested in his government right now that we have very little choice but to sort of tolerate those kinds of comments, which is one reason of many that i think we should start moving towards a counterterrorism strategy, away from this counterinsurgency strategy we've developed, so we

can move more kinds of missions and strikes that have killed bin laden and his top lieutenants instead of leaving this large footprint in the middle east that leaves a large target for pakistan. >> thanks for the perspective, guys, ashwin and tony, thank you. the panel joins us after this. we have another voice as well, and significant constitutional one that says, listen, here's how you do it. we'll show you his amendment. and here's how he wants to prosecute it. think state legislatures. 4g-- the next evolution in wireless technology.

with advanced power, the verizon 4g lte network makes your business run faster: smartphones, laptops, tablets, mobile hotspots. but not all 4g is created equal. among the major carriers, only verizon's 4g network is 100% lte, the gold standard of wireless technology. and while other carriers may have limited lte coverage, verizon is the largest lte network in america and ever-growing. with verizon 4g lte, you can invent new ways to upgrade your business using real-time group meetings from remote locations, video conferencing, mobile credit-card payments, lightning-fast downloads, and access to thousands of business apps. plus, verizon has the largest selection of 4g lte devices and the most 4g lte coverage for your business. all on america's fastest, most reliable 4g network. no wonder more businesses choose verizon wireless than any other wireless carrier.

verizon. it is a spectacular deal. show-me-the-carfax. carfax is only for grown-ups. well, then show me the carfax. he doesn't work here. 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.

well, money, secret, unlimited, spent money from people you've never met who will never reveal themselves by the billion, it's free speech, democracy. that's where we stand in this country, not only in the wake of citizens united, but decades of increasing, shall we say,

deregulation of the barrier between human beings and corporations. and our next guest is on a crusade to, as he says, correct the damage the supreme court has done to the first amendment, and return speech to the actual people. today's specialist is john bonifaz. he's a constitutional scholar and director of free speech for people. he has an amendment of his own to help get money out. which is wonderful news for us, because every time somebody, particularly a constitutional scholar, steps forward with such a document, we all get a chance to learn. and professor bonifaz, if i was to look -- before we get to the actual amendment, what was the intention of the basis of your amendment? what were you trying to achieve when you wrote your language? >> well, the focus of this amendment, and i should be clear, i'm not a professor, i'm an attorney, a constitutional attorney at that, but the focus of this amendment is to make clear that corporations are not people with constitutional rights. the framers never intended corporations to be intended as

people under the constitution. and for more than two centuries, we never treated them with free speech rights. this idea of corporations having free speech rights is a fairly new one. and this citizens united ruling is the most extreme extension of that corporate rights doctrine. we need to restore democracy to the people, with a 28th amendment that ensures that we, the people, rule, not, we, the corporations. >> as you know, i couldn't agree with you more. jimmy williams couldn't agree with you more. he quit his job and helped us establish the get money out foundation to drive this debate publicly. we're obviously in a period where we're trying to figure out what the best amendment to consolidate around is for everybody involved. i would like to read yours and get your analysis as to what you think about mr. bonifaz's language. he says, section one, we the people who ordain and establish this constitution intend the rights protected by this constitution to be the rights of natural persons. people, person, or persons as used in this constitution does

not include corporations, limited liability companies, or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the united states, or any foreign state. and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of congress and the states under this constitution. section 3. nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the peoples, which are -- which rights are inalienable. what do you think about that, jimmy? >> well, first of all, thank you, mr. bonifaz, for, a, coming on the show, and b, writing this. i like what you've written. the idea of delineating between a person, ie, you and me, and the koch brothers corporation or any of their corporate entities, is important.

but here's the problem. money is speech. that's what justice kennedy used for citizens united. it's what they've used for buckley v. vallejo. it's what they continue to the use to strike down mccain/feingold. under your amendment, here's my question for you, would a self-funder be able to give money to his or her own campaign? here's an example of a self-funder. david koch. >> yes, the answer is yes. but to follow-up on that, i mean, i agree with you completely that money should not equal speech. in fact, the buckley vallejo decision that opened the floodgates for that is wrong as well. and the focus needs to be on all of these concerns. the fact is that the central issue facing america today is whether the promise of we the people will be upheld or whether we will allow corporations, artificial entities that we create, to effectively dominate our government and our politics. and big money needs to come out

of politics too, absolutely. at the same time, we've got to take on this whole false notion, this fabricated doctrine of corporate rights and restore the constitution to the people. >> what is your assessment of the intention of jimmy's language, which i consider ncaa rules, that says i'm not here to control flow of funds, i'm here to say if you are a federal politician and you take money a la a quarterback anotht usc, yo cannot play. >> well, i think that the idea of your amendment is effectively to push open the need for public funding of elections. that we're going to finance our campaigns through people, not through wealthy interests financing them. and i agree with that. i just think we also have to focus on the problem at hand that citizens united created. which, of course, is to say that corporations now have the ability to spend unlimited amounts of their own corporate general treasury funds in our elections. we had $5 billion spent in total in the last cycle in 2008, the last presidential election

cycle. if we see corporations spending that kind of money on the next presidential election cycle, it's going to be more than double, if not anything further than that in terms of the ex exponential growth of money coming in the process. that's what's so dangerous about this to the process, and to our government. >> would you consider unions as part of those corporations that would prevent them from giving as well? >> we do. if unions are unincorporated, they are not impacted, but anything that is incorporated, by definition, is not a person. it is seeking a charter from the state, it has state-based advantages that you and i do not have. perpetual life, the ability to aggregate wealth. there are advantages the state provides to be able to organize in that way. we treat all corporations the same and all of them should not be treated as people. >> which is also true in jimmy's

language as well, that any private enterprise, whether it's a union or a corporation, that it's the use -- the tools of private organization and the legal apparatus that is being exploited. karen, go ahead. >> my question is, isn't the most direct, simple way to do this, what jimmy and you have talked about, really making it about money, not being speech. there was a case that was just ruled on. i know the justice department is actually trying to challenge it, where a judge in the fourth circuit basically said, there's to reason to think that corporations can't give to individual candidates in the same way because of the rationale of citizens united, which is obviously a big part of the problem of citizens united. he said, directly in his decision, that there seemed to be no reason to think that there'd be any corruption, which is outrageous in and of itself, but i guess the point being, when i look at your language and jimmy's language and what dylan has talked about, i wonder, again, isn't it easiest to just say, no money. no money can be spent in these

elections period, so that it's not about corporations or people or limited liability or unions, it's no money. >> well, look, i think there are two problems we need to address here. one is the issue of big money in our elections. and i think you're right. people are ready to say, get the money out. but i also think the second problem that has to be addressed and is as equally fundamental and important is this idea that corporations can be treated as people with constitutional rights. that not only occurs in the election contest, but it occurs in all other areas in which corporations go into court and they make claims, big, large corporations make claims that environmental laws, health care laws, consumer rights laws, civil rights laws should be struck down on this fabricated idea that corporations have rights to trample those laws. to trample, we the people, and our ability to have self-government. and that's a critical question as well that's raised by citizencitizen s united and needs to be addressed. >> we would love to post your amendment to our get money out

website to allow people to continue to digest all of the different individuals and minds and thoughts that are trying to work on this problem and invite you to join us for future debate, i hope, as, again, we view ourselves as communications advocates and you are a constitutional scholar. so i think we could help each other. >> i would love that and look forward to working with you, dylan. >> wonderful. the feeling is mutual. i'm excited there's so many different people from different places with such diverse points of view, which i think is very encouraging to solving this problem. and i know that i called you doctor, john, i call you professor. i want to assign a title to you that you simply do not have, but john, i do appreciate your intelligence and insight and engagement with us. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> john bonifaz, do stop by not only free speech for the people, but getmoneyout.com. we'll put john bonifaz's amendment up there within the

next 24 hours. if you've already signed the petition, please share with us the reason why that you have joined this digital wave. and also, if you can help us expose the auction that is our political system, there is a link there under 200,000 strong, where you can add that to help expose the auction. coming up here, not only get the money out, but let the aliens in. our are e.t.-like encounters all just a dream. ♪ [ jim ] i need to push out a software upgrade.

build a new app for the sales team in beijing. and convince the c.e.o. his email will find him... wherever he is. i need to see my family while they're still awake. [ male announcer ] with global services from dell, jim can address his company's i.t. needs through custom built applications, cloud solutions and ongoing support in over 100 countries. so his company sees results. and jim sees his family. dell. the power to do more. 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. ♪

when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you up to thousands of dollars.

these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, i can keep my own doctor and choose my own hospital. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. as with all medicare supplement plans, and help pay for what medicare doesn't. call this toll-free number now... well, alien abductions have been the stuff of legend for decades. of course, there are many out there who argue they are nothing more than figments of people's imagination. now scientists say they're trying to figure out the truth. researchers from the out of body experience research center, there is such a place, told 20 volunteers before they went to sleep to separate their mind from their bodies and think about aliens. strangely enough, half of the group reported having an out of body experience skpeand seeing

aliens. one even said the aliens looked like the aliens from the movie "the thing." they believe it shows alien abductions are all in our minds. i could argue that if i tell you what to dream about, you will. different way to look at it. could alien encounters be a figment of our imagination? maybe. will research like this prove it? i can't see how. but maybe these people actually left their bodies, or maybe the researchers are aliens themselves! anyway. it was kind of a silly thing and i thought i would share it with you. america, of course, have been striving for a more perfect union, on a more serious note, since day one. we've been very unfair, we've always aspired to fairness. but is that still the case? glen greenwald joins us to talk about his new book, next. you might think all these cost about the same... protect about the same... but what if you have an accident? allstate accident forgiveness starts the day you sign up. these guys might make you wait a couple of years.

we can't wait a couple years. [ babbles ] no you cannot. thanks. don't mention it. [ dennis ] 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. ♪ [ female announcer ] mini™ meets berries. kellogg's® frosted mini-wheats cereal with a touch of fruit in the middle. helloooooo fruit in the middle. this is not how witness protection works! when we set you up with that little hardware store we didn't intend for your face to be everywhere. but fedex office makes it so easy. not only do they ship stuff, they print flyers, brochures -- everything i need to get my name out there. that's the problem. now we need to give you a third identity. you're paul matheson. and you're gonna run your business into the ground. erik gustafson would never do that! there is no erik gustafson. hey that's erik gustafson!!! there is no erik gustafson!!!!! [ male announcer ] small business solutions.

fedex. solutions that matter. see? he's taking his vitamins. new one a day vitacraves plus omega-3 dha is a complete multivitamin for adults. plus an excellent source of omega-3 dha in a great tasting gummy. one a day, gummies for grown-ups.

me numbers out this week helping to confirm that we are, indeed, a country divided. since 1979, the largest growth in our country has been exclusively for the top 1%, a whopping 275% increase in their income, seven times more growth than the middle class, and a different set of rules for those in that class when it comes to everything from the tax code to punishment for financial crimes. it is no wonder that the 99% have so understandably frustrated. and with us now is salon.com's glen greenwald, author of a very rapidly selling, i might add,

book. it is entitled "with liberty and justice for some." who needs all, really? how the law is used to destroy equality and protect the powerful. you made a very clear point to me yesterday when we were speaking for the podcast, glenn, which the biggest change is not the unfairness. the biggest change you see the abandonment of even pretending that we aspire to fairness in this country. can you elaborate on that thought? >> sure. the founder and basically all americans have written about the topic of the rule of law in american justice since then have all emphasized the notion of equality under the law. no matter who you are, we're all treated with the same set of punishments if we violate those rules. and yet have been when went our country over the course of its first 200 years violated that principle, as it did repeatedly and violently in ways that everybody already knows about, we continue to affirm the principle that it was vital that

equality under the law persist. and because we affirm that principle, it is really the aspirational principle that guided auz as we moved further and further toward this idea of quality, legal equality. but what's happened over the past several decades, when these arguments were first promulgated and have become widely accepted now, it's actually no longer even necessary or desirable to hold everybody equally accountable under the rule of law. that, instead, there is a sliver of the population, namely the countries most politically and financially powerful, who should be permitted, even when they get caught redhanded breaking the law, as so many of them have over the last decade in many, many ways, they should be given immunity and allowed to break the law with impunity, and it's created this the two-tiered system of justice, where the most powerful are exempt from the rule of law and the rest of us are subjected to the world's largest and one of the most merciless systems of punishment.

>> and the cynics will say, every country in the world, for as long as there have been countries, the fortaffarfor ph egyptians, there's always been the wealthy and the powerful and those that are not wealthy and powerful. what's so different about this particular situation. and when that has happened in the past, barring violent revolution, what alternatives other than violent revolution have emerged to reconcile these problems? >> embedded in the american political culture, and this was certainly true of the founders and it's true of most americans today, is the idea that outcome inequality, meaning wealth inequality or income inequality or inequality in prestige and power is not just inevitable, but even desirable. we, as americans, for better or for worse, have come to believe that it's necessary to have even substantial inequality, there'll be some people very rich and many people very poor. and yet, the acceptance of that

inequality is grounded in the premise that inequality will be deserved and legitimate, because we're all playing on an equal playing field. that we're all playing at the same starting line, therefore whoever the fastest runner is wins the race and deserves to win it. the reason why there are such extreme and pervasive anger that's manifested in the tea party, that's manifested in the occupy movements is not because people are angry suddenly that there's inequality, that we've all become socialists or communists overnight, it's because there's a growing accurate perception that this inequality is not the by-product of fair and reasonable and well-deserved accomplishments, but the by-product of cheating, of a tilted playing field, of the fact that the winners exempt themselves from the rules to which the rest of us are bound. and typically, it is the law that constrains the most powerful from abusing their power, when law ceases to apply to them, as it has, the only solution that citizens have is

to go outside of the system of law and begin to demand that that change. and i think that's why so many citizens are taking to the street and protesting and realizing that working within the system is no longer a viable course of action. >> at the same time, as we saw through great leaders, most notably, nelson mandela, where there was a total indictment of the system of government in south africa, just as destructive as the status quo is, the infuriated response to the status quo that can lead towards violence is equally dangerous. and the high-wire act is to convert that rage into resolution. what is your sense of our collective ability to do that? >> you know, we don't think about the united states as being a country where substantial citizen unrest is likely, even though we've seen it in the 1960s and we saw it led by dr. martin luther king and at other times as well.

we think we have a guarantee of prosperity and a smooth, stable democracy. and yet, countries around the world that have substantially less inequality and economic difficulty than we have are experiencing very serious protest movements and instances of social unrest. and i think that what you see is that coming to the united states, and then the question becomes, how is that going to be channeled? how is that going to be focused? and it's true that protest movements of that sort can often be volatile, they can be unpredictable, they can even be dangerous in some way, but i think the conclusion a lot of people are reaching is that the status quo, the failure to accommodate or to adhere to rules for anyone outside of this 99%, is itself extremely volatile, and itself, extremely dangerous and destructive, and that a course of action where citizens do go out on to the streets in the united states is becoming a more and more attractive and really only alternative for effectuating the

kind of campaign that people thought the 2008 campaign would bring. >> again, if the response in the market place is any indication in this world, the incredible response that your book is receiving, if anybody wants to take a gander, you can see glenn just rapidly ascending on the amazon best seller look, and for good cause, "with liberty and justice for some: how the law is used to destroy equality and protect the powerful." congratulations on what i suspect will be a very impactful and meaningful book, glenn. >> thank you, dylan. appreciate that. >> okay. again, we have also posted an extended conversation with glenn greenwald @dylanratigan.com this afternoon. head there for a full half-hour podcast with glenn, not only on the issues in this book, but on the resolution to so many issues of the day. coming up on "hardball," romney's the front-runner, but chris is asking whether his flip-flopping may be a fatal flaw for his candidacy. but first, the latest move

out of the consequence of the bad economy. college graduates with debt, no job, moving back in with mom and dad. when's the time to cut them off? noah cass in the house, after this. imat'mas matime to make our floor look better and feel softer. how 'bout we start with the guaranteed low price on the carpet... the pad, and installation. let's get peace of mind for a lifetime. it all adds up to better carpet at a better price and a great-looking room transformed. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. get 10% off or 18 months special financing on carpet purchases of $450 or more when you use your home depot credit card. i'm not a line item on a budget. and i'm definitely not a pushover. but i am a voter. so washington... before you even think about cutting my medicare and social security benefits... here's a number you should remember. 50 million. we are 50 million seniors who earned our benefits...

and you will be hearing from us... today and on election day. ♪ no problem. td ameritrade has all kinds of answers. call us for quick help opening your new ira. or an in-depth talk with a retirement expert like me. stop by my branch for a free retirement checkup. retirement hows and how muches. when's. and what ifs. bring them on. it's free.

you're gonna retire. and we're gonna help. retirement answers at td ameritrade. [ male announcer ] roll over your old 401(k) and get up to $600. ♪

what are you doing? >> i got into law school. >> what about you? >> keeping my options open. >> so what you're saying is you're unemployed. >> i have no job and i live with my parents. this is not the way it's supposed to go. you're not supposed to come back when you've already left the nest. >> well, they've been dubbed the bo boomerang kids. we're talking about the 6 million unemployed young

americans strapped with all kinds of debt. a 25% increase since the start of the recession of returning or boomerang kids. so what is a parent to do? and today we're bringing back "the d.r. show's" resident therapist, noah cass. i cannot think of something more difficult than looking at my child, my son, my daughter, and explaining to them while they are in debt and do not have a job that they can no longer live in this house. >> yeah, you feel like you failed as a parent. >> guilt beyond all comprehension. >> yeah. >> shame. >> and also, kind of like resentful that you want them to leave. >> yeah. >> you know? that you've kind of contributed to their failure to launch. >> yeah. >> but in another way, you still want them out so you can enjoy the little bit amount of money you still have, you know? >> at the same time, also, you would, i would think have,

obviously, most parents, i think, have greater aspirations for their children in many cases than they do for themselves. and there has to be an aspect of wondering, what can i do as a parent to help this younger person lock in. >> right. i think the whole idea of the previous generation was that they be able to help their kids get a life where they could follow any passion that they wanted. the whole idea behind liberal arts education is that you can follow any passion that you wanted, but the facts are now, you talked about student loans earlier in the week, the fact is now, we're faced as young adults with a choice often between following our passion and following the reality. and it's sad enough as a young adult to know you have to make that choice. and i'm sure it's sad for a parent, who has worked so hard to provide their kid with a chance to make the choice. and then in the last six, seven eight years, to have it ripped away from them.

>> you have some -- i don't know if they are solutions, per se, but ways to think about this that could lead to solutions. >> first of all, if you're, i like to say young adult, because they're not a child. if the young the adult comes back and is living with you, the dynamics of the relationship has to change. yes, you're financially the provider, but as a parent, you can't treat them like they're a kid. that's going to only reinforce the idea of their adolescence being prolonged. there are no curfews for a person who's a young adult. you know, they deserve privacy and they deserve respect. on the same token, as a young adult, you have to understand that your parent is no longer the chief chef. >> or room cleaner. or launderer. >> or made service, you know? you're a young adult. it's time that you step up. and if you can't provide things financially for the house, then provide something else. provide chores -- >> labor. >> right, labor. exactly. although i do think that it's important that you give a little

as a young adult. you know, whether it's paying for utilities or paying for some of the groceries. because then it becomes a bit of an extended vacation. >> it sounds, it's pretty apparent, that the greatest risk in a young adult living at home is, effectively, a disrespect of one another in the household. >> yeah. >> implicitly. that you're not going to be economically responsible, but you're going to have to work, and maintaining that is pretty central. >> it's pretty central. and i guess communication is the key, having an open dialogue. and also like, not, every time you talk, it can't be about the future. i mean, you sometimes have to have just discussions about nonconfrontational topics. >> you can't just say, get a job today? >> right. >> what about tomorrow? >> right. talk about baseball. talk about who's going to win -- is there a game tonight? >> the rangers and the cardinals. i don't know. >> talk about tv. it can't always be what your future is going