good morning from new york. i'm chris hayes. a group of south african miners are vowing to fight to the death after police officers shot and killed 34 miners armed with sticks and machetes. and paul ryan is taking his mother on the trail to florida to campaign about medicare. we'll talk about that in a bit. but first, the story of the week, congressman ryan. many progressives and mainstream media outlets have noticed it. he's a true believe eric truly influenced by the highly deep influencer ayn rand. paint a picture of a world divided into makers and takers, those who produce and those who mooch. to rand the ultimate good is freedom, self-autonomy and auld

attempts to weave it are incursions on that freedom and the suspect even contentable. ryan suffered through a hordable tragedy in his teen age years when he discovered his father dead of a haste attack. it shook ryan. it changed his outlook. his mother went back to school and they took in his grand mother. he thought, quote, i've got to sink or swim in this life. there's a deep existential sense for everything. we're all responsible choices we make. in fact, it's never the case we do. this is where we start to see the detention with ryan's philosophy and his biography. there's no doubt his father's death was wrenching.

they availed themselves of thing thais should have which helped them not only to survive but thrive, preserving their freedomings rather than diminishing them. first there's the social security check the government started sending to pay for his college. and his family was made off, something he was born into. one of the most prominent. owners of a large successful construction company which got its start in 1884 in railroad construction. the company continued to prosper as it built public roads. it's the same family company that would later hire paul a job in marketing. then there's the government paycheck that ryan himself has drawn for much of his adult life. in the randian division between makers and takes, those whose links are provided by the government paycheck are squarely on the side of the taker legislator.

castigating it and condemning it isn't limited to ryan. in fact, rand herself warned against the deep sucking of the state pulled off the same trick. she wrote, is delivering oneself into gradual enslavement. rand also authored a hilarious justification of people like herself taking advantage of the fruits of her enslavement. rand offers comforting advice. quote, the recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only if he regards it as restituti restitution. those who advocate public scholarships have no right to them. twhoes oppose have. rand was true to her word. in later years she collected

social security and pension under her married name ayn o'connor. automatically entitled to hospital coverage. charles koch writes you are entitled to social security payments. i'm not sure hypocrisy is really the right word here. it's a little like the folks at wall street who were using iphones. the response for both occupiers and rand devotees is we're all embedded in the world as it is. a capitalist economy with a system of social insurance and few of us can individually withdraw fully from either. so it's not hypocrisy that bothers us so much of those who have benefitted from personal privilege, family name, and, yes, the welfare state,

constantly heckling others to sink or swim on their own and taking effective steps to give them some of the same cushion they had. that's a problem much bigger than paul ryan. it's the way in which invites those who are successful to write to themselves a story of their own personal overcoming of the odds. their own sink or swim moments, the way their success was produced by personal achievement, conveniently erased the role that society played in all of it. that's exactly what mitt romney did at a debate earlier this year. >> my dad, as you know, born in mexico, poor, didn't get a college degree, became the head of a car company. i could have stayed in detroit like him and got pulled up in the car company. i went off on my own. i didn't inherit money from my parents. what i had, i earned. i worked hard in the american way. >> a land where people rise and fall on their own pluck, drive, and intelligence, a land where

we uniquely decry a quality of opportunity and whoever comes out the winner in the actual competition, then they're the deserving ones. in fact, paul ryan himself made precisely that point during his first speech as v.p. candidate on saturday. >> we promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, and this idea was founded on the principles of liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination, and government by consent of the governed. >> of course, even if you accept this as the mandate of american fair ps, how exactly does cutting food stamps for poor kids preserve quality of opportunity or cutting medicaid by a third, leaving thousands of poor sick people without care. ryan tells the story of it as a necessary valuation as holy

produced by those individuals. their drive, their laziness or stupid, but ryan and those who slar his view don't prioritize that in any meaningful way. they don't show any signs of a serious commitment to it. what they are committed to is maximizing the freedom, especially the economic freedom of those who most benefit from society's outcomes. our panel joins us for what this week told us about ryan's past and about the romney campaign itself right after this. ♪ why not start the weekend before the week ends? get two times the points on dining in restaurants with chase sapphire preferred.

[ female announcer ] new roc® retinol correxion max. the power of roc® retinol is intensified with a serum. it's proven to be 4x better at smoothing lines and deep wrinkles than professional treatments. roc® max for maximum results. trick question. i love everything about this country! including prilosec otc. you know one pill each morning treats your frequent heartburn so you can enjoy all this great land of ours has to offer like demolition derbies. and drive thru weddings. so if you're one of those people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day, block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

♪ [music plays] ♪ [music plays] get two times the points on dining in restaurants with chase sapphire preferred.

joining me at the table are josh barro.

heather mcghee, kneel bar of ski, and michelle goldberg. i did a monologue about the trajectory of paul ryan as a kind of ideological figure. to me the most interesting story that happened in the weeks that happened when we were last on the air when we were hear is when we were sitting aet this table a week ago we were saying, well, ryan's really doubling down. he's going for it ideologically, right? i'm going to be the person that gives america the tough medicine, right? we're going go after medicare. >> that's tough medicine, that's true. >> right, exactly. we're going to do this. and paul ryan is the tribune of this kind of ideological impurity. but that's not how the week has played out at all. at the end of the week it appears that paul ryan has been selected to be the person to attack barack obama for cutting medicare and then yesterday for

not baling out more of the auto industry. >> if i may just quickly quote "the new york times." >> please. it's a trusted source on this show. >> yeah. occasionally they get it ride. ryan is a powerful influence on the intellectuals, economists, writers, policy makers who are at the heard of washington's conservative establishment. that to me -- i don't know what planet these people are from, but jeffersonian democracy, jefferson was in france, was appalled and came back because there's nothing about personal rights or protecting your paper or your home. so he had a -- jefferson had a big fight with hamilton and madison. they were kind of hobcy. i take very seriously the pursuit of happiness in the

constitution and the government's not supposed to get in the way of doing it. like when bill clinton became a republican and ended welfare as we know it, that's kind of a lost story. >> if ryan -- >> let me finish my thought, i'm sorry, chris. you want people to pull themselves by their bootstraps but outtheir bootstraps. you want them to get off well care and go on work. excuse me for interrupting you but i get worked up. >> there that's the point. the yiedology of individual achievement stands. the question is how is that vision that they say they adhere to of individual achievement and individual liberty applied to the ed fast of the welfare state and the answer has been in a total messy contradictory way. >> but i think it's only messy and contradictory if you assume that the political arm and the conservative movement are going to be speaking with the same voice. i mean part of the reason that

ryan is so useful, i think, is he can go out and demagogue against custs to medicare without freaking out the base. >> right. that's interesting. that's interesting. >> i think it shows romney's firm belief in etch a sketch campaigning. he believes that the public can be so fooled by any ideological change that paul ryan doesn't have to be an ideological conservative. he thinks they can sell that to the public. i think he's right. >> sell what? >> sell the line that -- >> obama cut waste, fraud, and abuse and these guys want to pay for it as we know. >> right. but that was almost too many sentences or too many words for a sound bite. >> that's a remarkable thing. the remarkable thing is what's been teed up -- the remark thing

that's been teed up is now we're having a debate about the mechanisms by who is cutting medicare in what way. >> it is bizarre. >> it's a bizarre terrain to run the campaign on. first of all, there's 8% unemployment. there's 16 million people out of work. like this is the thing we're going to talk about, fiscal projections for 2020. >> this is 2010. >> you made a -- i'm sorry, did i interrupt you? >> what ryan is saying that is now being echoed is the problem is barack obama cuts your medicare that you've paid for all your life, right, which is not even a government program, right, because you've paid for it all your life and gives it to this new things for these new people. >> that may or may not look like you. >> right. and that's like as pure, you know, sort of conservative ideology which you can get, which is makers, takers, lots of

racism underneath. >> i don't thing it's conservative ideology. i i think it's interest group politics. they triering to get the votes of old people. >> who are the demographic base. >> not anymore. >> cutting 10% out of medicare over the next decade as the president does is not a waste, fraud, or abuse things. >> that's the key. that's the key. >> that's a bit of a distinction. >> please, please. there is a difference between a patient and a provider. >> i understand there's a difference but when you cut medicare reimbursement rates, it's not only a concern for the physician. >> it's being done because they're going to have more paying customers and it's cutting the 117% we've been giving away. >> a lot of these cuts were agreed to by hospitals because they were going to get more under the aca. the only way these cuts really

reverberate and hurt patients if you do away with it because then the hospitals doan have the cushion to make up for these other -- >> can i for one second just play ryan talking about this. one of the things that's happened is ryan -- the president's going to cut medicare, we're also going to repeal the affordable care act but we're keeping the savings in the affordable care act in our budget and here's how -- this is how paul ryan responded to that. >> first of all those are invasive. second we voted that way. i voted that way. so -- we restore a lot of that. we would have never done it in the first place. we've already repealed the whole bill. i just don't think they'll be able to get out of the fact.

>> that doesn't -- that doesn't make any sense. >> it means nothing and very often if you get conservative wonks deep into this they start babbling. there's a theory put out by one of the medicare trust fund hounds. it's an accounts fiction so what the law says is when the trust fund runs out of money, medicare can't spend any more than it collects in taxes. you're going to see an immediate 40% cut which is never going to happen. if you assume it happens what you can say is by following president obama's cuts now we push out the insolvency so it allows us to save medicare later. to be really clear, know that like medicare trust fund --

people are going go to sleep. the aca 40 affordable care act extends it by four years. it does the opposite of draining the trust fund. >> i thought the whole point -- i just don't understand -- i do understand. i'm concern-trolling. but it's like if the vision is -- why would you want to fight this battle if you're a republican strategist? it's like if the democrat said the thig we want to have a debate on, is who's going to deliver tax cuts for the rich? we're the ones. not the republicans. that's preposterous. look at the record. what coalition has those interests in mind. if you're a rich person who wants the taxes cut, you have an easy choice. why are you going to go with the republicans as the ones who are going to be preserving medicare. and everyone likes 50% more [ russian accent ] rubles. eh, eheh, eh, eh.

[ brooklyn accent ] 50% more simoleons. [ western accent ] 50% more sawbucks. ♪ [ maine accent ] 50% more clams. it's a lobster, either way. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. with a 50% annual cash bonus, it's the card for people who like more cash. [ italian accent ] 50% more dough! what's in your wallet?

there's no question your campaign is trying to make this a referendum on obama. now some are saying you're making a referendum on paul ryan's budget plan. >> well, i have my budget plan, as you know, that i've put out. and that's the budget plan that we're going to run on. >> that's the first interview the running mates gave on sunday. >> very general hagan, i'm in charge here. >> let's remember who's calling the charges. >> i liked when he introduced ryan, the next president of the united states. >> i was squirming when he had to come back and apool jazz. >> you were asking how is it that ryan is now the one defending medicare and how can that even pass the smell test. i think it's because frankly the american people right now are so distrustful of politicians in general, and they are very

confused, rightly, by the 75 time horizons that we're throwing around on these big fiscal policy debates. there's an in ability for white seniors to trust barack obama on medicare and it doesn't have to do with the poll sicks. it has to do with the demographics -- >> i like how you're using demographics. you mean race. >> by no means am i afraid to use the word "race." it has to do with race, familiarity and in 2010 the republican tea party ran on cuts to medicare. >> let me also say i have to say it has do with demographics in the generational sense. the big kind of hustle -- the big hustle of the ryan plan, look, seniors of america, we're not coming for you. if you're over 55, you're fine. we don't touch anything, right.

and to me i was saying this in the greenroom. it's similar to the scott walker policy. you guys are pretty reliable. we're not going to mess with your collective bargaining. you guys -- and there wasn't a good policy rationale but it was a distinguished one. current seniors, don't worry, we're not coming for you. it's those other people. >> but one other thing -- no, go ahead. you may more. i'm just saying if you're under 55, f.u. if you're deceased, go ahead and zmie we grash you this trickle-down economy, the debt, the low-age jobs, now go have fun on your own. >> i think the effect is there but the republicans have got on the the president's left on

medicare for people who are 55 and over. even the medicare advantage cuts. let me just say the amount of beneficiaries is an open empirical question. they're targeted at providers. there will be cascading effects. >> the medicare advantage cuts, what it means is very often they're more generous than traditional medicare. i think it's bad way of spending the government's money but it's true there are a constituent of seniors who will lose that benefit. so i think republicans have defended that. they voted repeatedly to restore the medicare cut sois they really have taken on the clear position that they will spend more on medicare for people who are already old. thank's why they can sell that position. it is their position. >> if it takes -- you did it

eloquently, but if they have to explain it the way you did, you know, eyes will glaze over, and our seniors as well versed in this as you? >> the bumper sticker -- that's the amazing thing. the guy who talks about makers and takers. they're saying we will spend more on you. that is the message. >> i could quibble with a couple of things in there. first of all, we know the democr democrats are as not if not more to cutting beneficiary benefits. >> no. they cut providers.

they talk about the reaction. they say if seniors start to scream, we will fix it. you know the democrats will. we're talking about the democrats here. there's the doughnut hole and lots of other things that we can't say it's a given that the democrats have actually sort of sold out today's seniors. >> no, no. i'm not -- i want to make sure i'm on the record saying i don't think that. let's briefly walk back to the genesis of all this is which is when you look at the long-range fiscalness of the country it's the medical. the hardest hit is medicare. this is the grand irony. okay, fiscal hawks, let's talk about it. we're going do something about that. what happened in 2010, the republicans took this, stonewall

pieces of legislation and turned around. >> you have a book about crisis of authority and crisis of expertise. there are higher reimbursement rates. there's a lot of things that have nothing to do with health care and in some cases are actually counter-productive. so one of the ways they want to achieve some of these cuts is by figuring out what works by saying these procedures are more effective than these procedures. they want to eliminate funding for some operations that have been shown not to work, you know. but we don't even have enough of a kind of common trust. to do that without people screaming death panels. >> what i would love is a not deficit affordable air. this wul to make the biggest expanse to millions of americans that was going have incredible

benefits, all of this for security, economic freedom, for working people. we had to make that deficit neutral because of this fiscal restraint. >> let's talk about for one second how ryan is running from his girlfriend ayn rand. have you noticed that? >> yes. >> he said he gave it to his staff, he has his bible, and now he's running from here. >> that's part and parcel of everything we've seen this week. the record of his votes, the bizarre messaging where paul ryan is now the person to go tell seniors we oar going to spend more money on medicare and ayn rand. the name ring as bell. paul ryan releases tacks last night. so i want to talk about what those reveal about paul ryan with david k. johnson after this.

♪ intel bong i've still got hou orsf battery life. it's an ultrabook. i'm good. with an ultrabook, everything else seems old fashioned. introducing the ultra sleek, ultra long-lasting ultrabook. a whole new class of computers powered by intel. some people think steak is only meant for special occasions. well who said breakfast. on a tuesday. can't be special. get that great taste anytime. with kingsford match light charcoal

this is new york state. we built the first railway, the first trade route to the west, the greatest empires. then, some said, we lost our edge. well today, there's a new new york state. one that's working to attract businesses and create jobs. a place where innovation meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com.

. a very smart person emailed us. the policy is not 1 dollar less for those who currently have health insurance including medicare and not $1.00 more period who don't. that's basically it. if you've got it, you keep it. if you don't, too bad. i want to right now bring in david k. johnson, pulitzer prize-winning journalist. he's now with reuters. a lecturer on law. good morning. this is quickly turning into the david k. johnson election. >> yes. >> we've got some more tax returns from paul ryan last night. the headline is that he paid an effective rate of 16% in 2010 and 20% in 2011 and he report add combined income of over $538,000 over those two years. and effective rate of about 18%.

so to me the interesting thing is here's someone who's in the upper part of the income distribution in america. he's affluent. he's payer more in taxes than mitt romney who's making magnitudes more money than he is. >> romney makes more in a week than ryan does in a year. >> what i love about the tax returns is it has to do not necessarily with what the individual details are but the way we keep getting this window on what the tax window looks like and what the income distribution in the country looks like. this is a perfect example of the fractal nature of inee kwachlt ryan is a rich guy but he's not in the same universe as mitt romney. and the other thing about the ryan tax returns which i thought was so interesting is that it reminded you last night we found out the reinyans' tax returns w

out. it was like, oh, yeah, most people's taxes are boring. mitt romney's taxes are super interesting because he's worth $250 million and he makes a ton of money and people who make that much rub have interesting taxes. paul ryan who's doing okay, well actually compared to most americans are pretty boring. >> his taxes aren't interesting because he makes a lot of money but it's all over the america. >> totally un-american. >> no, it dreamsly american. >> ironically, yes. >> it's kind of unpatriounpatri >> i think he's doing everything he can including picking a vice-presidential nominee whose tax plan would have him paying a

0.82% tax rate to provide paying to the country he wants to run. >> that's a good point and do you think that ryan was imposed on romney? it seems like, you know, no one really predicted he would and then there was like a ground slung of ryan, ryan, ryan. it's kind of like the sarah palin thing. he wanted -- >> i think mccain rereluctant auntly accepted her to play this so-called base thing and now ryan is doing the same. and the base, the word is disgusting. they are base and the -- >> fellow human beings. >> well, they're human beings. >> they're our fellow citizens. >> what are the family values?

misogyny, homophobia -- >> i'm not trying to argue. i try to give people the charity. >> those people are basically decent but there are these core of racial elements within the party that are rearing its ugly head. >> i will say this. it is undeniably the case that races are almost in one entire political nature. david k. johnson was there anything that jumped out at you in the tax returns we saw from paul ryan? >> yes, think there's two very revealing things. paul ryan is right on the cusp of the top 1%. mitt romney is deeply in the top 1% of the 1% and not only is there a higher tax rate paid by paul ryan but it tells us what we've done with policy in this

country. the already rich get these huge tax place and the striver class, they're the ones most heavily taxed. paul ryan's tax rate is only 20%. he's in the minimal tax. if we got rid of it, his marginal rate will go up. >> david cay johnson, he wants to talk about that. we'll talk about that right after this break. thanks to our explorer card. then, the united club. my mother was so wrong about you. next, we get priority boarding on our flight i booked with miles. all because of the card. and me. okay, what's the plan? plan? mm-hmm. we're on vacation. this is no plan. really? [ male announcer ] the united mileageplus explorer card. the mileage card with special perks on united. get it and you're in.

who have used androgel 1%, there's big news. presenting androgel 1.62%. both are used to treat men with low testosterone. androgel 1.62% is from the makers of the number one prescribed testosterone replacement therapy. it raises your testosterone levels, and... is concentrated, so you could use less gel. and with androgel 1.62%, you can save on your monthly prescription. [ male announcer ] dosing and application sites between these products differ. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or, signs in a woman which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure.

men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are, or may become pregnant or are breast feeding should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. talk to your doctor today about androgel 1.62% so you can use less gel. log on now to androgeloffer.com and you could pay as little as ten dollars a month for androgel 1.62%. what are you waiting for? this is big news. until i show them this. the new oral-b pro-health clinical brush. its pro-flex sides adjust to teeth and gums for a better clean. the new pro-health clinical brush from oral-b.

we're talking about paul ryan's tax that were leased. he coincidently released two years of tax returns which happens to be the same number as mitt romney did but i think it's confirmed he gave more than that to the romney campaign. if you're hiring someone for a super important job understandably they like to see a longer record of the person's

finances and tax records so they ask for more than two years. do with that what you will. david cay johnson was talking about it. this is why i look at the upper middle class because they're the ones who are -- in terms of the tax burden in the country and in terms of the way the kind of inequality has played itself out, the peep in the top 10% of the super rich don't have access to the same byzantine tax shelters who are paying more than the folk 1% up from them. josh, what were you going to say? >> most of ryan's income consists of wages and royalties. >> but that's the point. that's how their income is comprised. >> but these are things that are not taxed at a corporate level. they're taxed only once.

much of mitt romney's taxes are taxed in the teens and taxed again at the individual level. so you need to apply some of that corporate tax burden to ryan. if do you, that he's probably paying more but not a lot. >> is there a difference between -- do you know romney says he pays a lot of taxes. not personal. isn't that what it's all about. it seems ill long cal. >> i'm sure romney pays more sales tacks. >> but he takes break on a horse. >> i mean this gets at the heart of it. we tax capital income, you know, capital gains and things like that and the argument is we tax wages much higher. if you happen to be someone making a fair amount of money

you're going to pay a higher rate. david. >> let me go right to the argument. there is no double taxation of corporate profits because as some economists have shown going back many years in a global economy -- it's not true of the national, the burden of the corporate income tax falls on workers. what if we see stagnant to lower wages for north americans? romney's organizations were largely set up as paz-through entities. so, josh, i'm sorry, the facts don't support the textbook theory that you were laying out and fundamentally we need to keep in mind this notion that the greater your gain, the higher your burden. that's 25 2,500 years old. it's the most conservative principle in public finance. paul ryan shouldn't be paying a higher effective tax rate than

mitt romney who makes in a week. >> josh, response to you. >> these wrong on both counts. >> ouch. >> the income tax is split between them. economists have done various studies if you talk with experts. a lot of people take the view that it falls prince employ on capitals so there is a fraction that falls on labor but there's a portion of that tax burden born by the investor, by mitt romney's side. >> there's a second part, josh, you're missing. the second part you're missing. that is the tax code in the u.s. allows companies to earn profits in the u.s. and siphon them out of the country to tax havens. that's why corporations are sitting on over $5 trillion of cash in 2009. trillion. trillion. you can earn profits in the u.s. if you're a multi national, treat them as expenses you pay from your american pocket and

hold that money tax-free. i mean the system is vaftsly more complicated than it appears on the textbook level. >> quickly. resolve this dispute in seven seconds. >> the burden of it is born by them. some have the ability do that. some don't because they don't have it. if you look at walmart, they're paying 35% in tax. it's difficult to see how much but zero is an incorrect answer. >> david kay johnson. thank you for joining us this morning. we'll continue to talk about taxes and get way into it with you next time you're on the show. thanks a lot. we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] girls don't talk about pads... but they do talk about always infinity.

[ marcy ] it's like memory foam. [ female announcer ] the only pad made from a revolutionary material. [ erina ] it totally fits to your body [ female announcer ] it's incredible protection, you'll barely feel it. always infinity. tell us what you think. mine hurt more! mine stopped hurting faster... [ female announcer ] neosporin® plus pain relief starts relieving pain faster and kills more types of infectious bacteria. neosporin® plus pain relief. for a two dollar coupon, visit neosporin.com. for their "destination wedding." double miles you can "actually" use. but with those single mile travel cards... [ bridesmaid ] blacked out... but i'm a bridesmaid. oh! "x" marks the spot she'll never sit. but i bought a dress! a toast... ...to the capital one venture card.

fly any airline, any flight, anytime. double miles you can actually use. what a coincidence? what's in your wallet? [ all screaming ] watch the elbows ladies.

mitt romney has cast his new running mate paul ryan.

there's much in ryan's record that undercuts his image as a deficit cutter including his vocal support for the bailout program known as the t.a.r.p. according to the center on budget and policy priorities. on wednesday house speaker john boehner was supposed to defend somewhat inartfully ryan's support for the bailout on fox news. >> he's a practical conservative. he's got a very conservative voting record but he's not a knuckle dragger, right? he understand that t.a.r.p., while none of us wanted to do it, if we were going to save our economy and save the world economy, it had to happen. >> i just want to say i'm personally offended on behalf of people, the members of john boehner's own caucus who voted against tarn two times and many who make up the constituents who oppose t.a.r.p. as knuckle

draggers. i want to put that on the record. that was the argument advanced by both sides. the book is called "bailout -- and it portrays in stunning portrayal the unwillingness at every turn to deal with a spiraling housing crisis that destroyed at much as $7 trillion in wealth and forced families from homes. neil brov ski joins us now.

you're hard on treasury. they come off as terrible people. they come off as bad people with bad priorities who are basically trying to screw over the american people whether intentionally or not, and so this is charlie rose asking tim geithner about your book in july. >> he raises the question was tim geithner too friendly with the banks. >> i'm deeply offended by that. i find that deeply offensive. if you think that what we did was ineffective or there are better alternatives, look at what europe is going through and ask yourself can you find something as effective and powerful as the strategy we defined? i don't think we -- you're asking this question which is how is it app example. >> what would you have done? >> what would you have done with

whose thought? >> i will channel tim geithner. neil barofsky, pony up. >> i don't think they're bad people. it resulted in the big banks essentially dictated the terms of their own bailout but as to that it's kind of comical, the famed defense. the answer to that, it's sort o funny. i made dozens of recommendations while i was at sig t.a.r.p. addressing these issues. really, almost countless recommendations to improve and make that program better that geithner ignored, discarded as well as recommendations on transparency and a number of other things. for him to have suggested that really suggests that maybe he

should have paid more attention in tow 9 and 2010. >> i want to make a distinction. it may have gotten a little lost. there's one, t.a.r.p. should have never happened. he called members of congress and said let's get homeowners in there. passed the second time around. one view where it shouldn't have happened, second, it should have but its implementation was bad. my sense is you near the second camp. you don't think they should have voted it down and walked away from the rubble. >> i think given the panic want was happening in 2008 something had to be done. we well were on the brink of armageddon. there's a sort of toetology. you saw what happened with lehman. aig was next.

goldman sachs would be gone, morgan stanley would have been gone, city bank would have been gone and some would have said, hey, that might have been a good system. but as you said, a condition for this bailout getting passed because it wasn't passing before hand wasn't just to pour a bunch of money into the banks because of their irresponsible bets going into the crisis. it with us going to help it was going put money back in the economy and those failures are very much the result of choices. >> those failures. i want to make clear. neil barofsky right now travels back in time. is a member of the house of representatives, has seen what will happen with t.a.r.p. implementation but is now back sitting in the well of the house casting a vote. you still vote for it? >> i still vote for it but i don't trust treasury to to the right thing. >> it it is key to understanding why we are where we are.

you spell it out very well in this book. we've got some real jaw-dropping stats on that. and we're going to get to those and talk about it right after this break. scratching ] you're not using too much are you, hon? ♪ nope. [ female announcer ] charmin ultra soft is so soft you'll have to remind your family they can use less. charmin ultra soft is made with extra cushions that are soft and more absorbent. plus you can use four times less versus the leading value brand. don't worry, there's plenty left for you dad. we all go. why not enjoy the go with charmin ultra soft? throughout our lives. one a day women's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for women's health concerns as we age. it has more of 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day 50+.

to support cell health. put me at 5 timesd out my greater risk of a stroke, my first thoughts were about my wife, and my family. i have the most common type of atrial fibrillation, or afib. it's not caused by a heart valve problem. i was taking warfarin, but my doctor put me on pradaxa instead to reduce my risk of stroke. in a clinical trial, pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate mesylate) reduced stroke risk 35% better than warfarin. and unlike warfarin, with pradaxa, there's no need for regular blood tests. that's really important to me. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding and seek immediate medical care

for unexpected signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have a bleeding condition like stomach ulcers, or take aspirin, nsaids, or blood thinners, or if you have kidney problems, especially if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all medicines you ta, any planned medical or dental procedures, and don't stop taking pradaxa without your doctor's approval, as stopping may increase your stroke risk. other side effects include indigestion, stomach pain, upset, or burning. pradaxa is progress. having afib not caused by a heart valve problem increases your risk of stroke. ask your doctor if you can reduce your risk with pradaxa.

good morning from a freezing studio in new york. with me is josh barro, michelle goldberg, neil barofsky, and heather mcghee. if someone says i want to talk to you about housing policy, it's super important because it was housing policy and crisis that got us into the market. what i want to lay out for people and what i want to get your thoughts on is we're in

what is a balance seat resection. you have too much debt hanging around and that debt is a burden that kind of hangs around the neck of the economy and no one can get standing up upright because it is dragging them down. it's like walking around in one of those suits that weigh a lot of money -- way a lot of munn. . that's a met for. i want to get statistics on housing. we all agree, housing bubble, people took on too much debt. take a look. $11 trillion. total mortgage debt. it is now essentially $10.2 trillion. it's not reduced by that much. in fact, it's remained at elevated levels historically, and one of the points of t.a.r.p. was to go after this excessive homeowner debt and liv that debt so they could be that

has failed to happen. less than 10%. so there's $45.6 billion all indicated for housing support programs. allocated. there was no 60th vote in the filibuster. less than a third of projected beneficiaries of home affordable programs has ceased to do this. in 2009 they said we imagine 3 to 4 million homeowners are goes to get relief. it's less 2012. why did that happen? >> they decided that this program that was supposed to help struggling homeowners wassing are going to be about assisting the banks. we talk about this in the book. in late '09 we had a meeting,

elizabeth warren and confronting geithner on the very clear failures of this program, how it was not coming close to meeting its obligations. it gave the banks incentives not to modify people's mortgages but to string them out and throw them on the foreclosure scrap heat and geithner defended the program by say iing that's whatt was about. it was about protecting the giant banks so they wouldn't need more t.a.r.p. money. >> the other phrase is extend and pretend. if all of them could get processed at the same time, the banks would become solvent sniet was never about the homeowners. it was always about the blaps

sheet of the bank. and i want to make sure we don't make the same mistake. it wasn't so much about the housing bubble but, yes, the housing market but the housing market as in my home being used as a casino chip. i think we need to be slr clear that what caused the banks to do a run on the banks was their derivative trading of these things that were tethered to mortgageages but it wasn't about people being put into homes. >> i think what's an on stamle is the household balance sheet. the bank balance sheets are fine. that's not the thing that's an obstacle to recover y. >> it is a real concern that they can become dissolvent

again. but the point is it costs money and someone has to pay for that and i think that's why there's resistance to it. >> and with whose money. >> the point is that's what t.a.r.p. was supposed to do. congress doesn't pass t.a.r.p. without the promise of fore closure relief. they had another $200 billion on top of that that was again authorized. could have been obligated. all of which could have gone to this. >> then you have what i will call the rick santilli problem, right, which is, you know, rick santilli of cnbc, the kind of iconic moment in which the tea party started was him ranting on the floor of the chicago mercantile policy. it with us going help home owners and basically saying your tax dollars are baling out the losers. the losers who bought a bathroom. my question is on the policy merits, you're right. they should have used that money

to write down principal reductions and we'll talk about what that means but they were so impossibly toxic that they would have blown up if they did it. >> i'm sorry. the coward ess by rick santilli should. be what the president does ore the secretary should do when they take an oath of office. they had an obligation to the american people and the congress. part of that was a meaningful homeowner policy. and, frankly the fact that they were going to be scared by rick santilli and that's why they spent $3 billion to $4 billion. i mean that's cowardess, not leadership it's not rick santilli. it's that he represents some general revulsion and general political revulsion on that part. remember, barack obama is already tting medicare. now he's taking your tax dollars to bail them out.

>> maybe the question isn't just about the politics of it. it's kind of how should somebody like geithner have addressed the moral argument? >> exactly as he did with the big banks. where's the revulsion of putting hundreds of billions out? >> again, there was no governor on the accelerating panel when it came to the banks. and the explanation was given. >> there was no reluctance and no concern about the incredible moral hazard. it had destroyed the economy and triggered if financial crisis and will trigger the next one because we haven't dealt with it. no concern at all. they explain it. they say they called it collateral benefit. those exact same principles should have been in play when dealing with the housing crisis because it's just as much a macro-economic problem as it was for the financial banks. >> let's talk about principle reductions. you've got a mortgage. it's more than you can afford, let's say. there's two ways to go about

deal with that. more than it's worth, your house is under water. you can refinance. say you had it at 7%. brick it down to say 4%. you know, master financing, but that doesn't get rid of the principal problem which is you owe more than it's worth. you're in favor of principal reductions. i think this is something glen hubbard has written about. >> marty feldstein. >> yeah. principal reductions have not happened. here is secretary treasury tim geithner testifying against principle reductions in december 2001 -- 2009. >> this program was not designnd and this was a conscious choits we made not to start with deep principle reduction and we made that choice because we thought it would be dramatically more expensive for the taxpayer, harder to justify, create much greater risk of up fairness.

>> that's giving his address. here's later from tim geithner. he's writing to the person who's overseeing the fully governed enterprises fannie and freddie. now yofr seen by a guy named edward demarco who's run them as a guarantor would. he's saying you should do principle reductions. in view of the clear benefits, the use of reductions would have for home oerps. i urge you to reconsider this decision. five years in the housing crisis and the legacy of the crisis continues to weigh on the market. very true. you have the o power to help more homeowners and heal the remaining damage from the housing crisis. what changed? did he just read your book and

even though he's mad at you, bro, he's decided to change his mind. >> those are the same words i advanced to treasury over and over again, not just in 2009 but 2010 and 2011. no, he hasn't. this is hypocrisy at its worst. oo they're still refusing to do it themselves in their own program, a recommendation i made back in 2010, one of those recommendations that tim geithner apparently forgot about when he was on charlie rose. i said do this for your own program and he still refuses to do this. they know demarco is going to say no. he's been saying no for six or seven months right now. >> which is a problem. >> no, no. i agree with geithner on this. i think demarco could have done this. they could have recessed it at the samb time they did court wright. they liked having him.

>> i wanted to ask you what you learned. it's really interesting from that perspective and here are your thoughts right after we take this break. ♪ why not take a day to explore your own backyard? with two times the points on travel, you may find yourself asking why not, a lot. chase sapphire preferred. there's more to enjoy.

some people think steak is only meant for special occasions. well who said breakfast. on a tuesday. can't be special. get that great taste anytime. with kingsford match light charcoal you'll inevitably find yourself on a desolate highway in your jeep grand cherokee. and when you do, you'll be grateful for the adaptive cruise control that automatically adjusts your speed when approaching slower traffic. and for the blind spot monitoring that helps remind you that the highway might not be as desolate... ...as you thought. ♪

josh bar ro thinks mitt romney has a secret plan. >> i do. i would recommend people read it but i want to ask you a little bit about its tone. what's entertaining about it is you're the protagonist that's beamed in from this other world. you're prosecuting mortgage fraudsters in the southern district of new york, prosecuting the fark in south america. you're coming in washington,

don't noknonoaknow washington's. the book ends up having a little bit of a roommate problem which is this. if you have a friend who always has a roommate who's terrible and they go through 12 roommates who are terrible, at the end of that you're thinking maybe it's not the roommates, like maybe there's something going on in this dynamic. and so it does seem to me a little bit is corrupt, dumb and per miss ivg. i think over the course of the book it took away a little bit of the credibility. i want you to respond to it. that's one of the things i saw in the negative reviews. >> just to be clear, i think it's one negative view. first of all i don't think that's entirely fair. i think i give compliments to

those who never receive compliments, which is members of congress who were very supportive. >> krchuck grassley, chuck grassley's staffstaff. >> i don't think thee people are dumb. nor do i think they're bad or evil. i think they represent and are captured by so many of them come from that what's good for the big five banks that there's going to be a natural clash between someone -- i was paid to look out for the interest of the taxpayer and to protect these programs from waste, frau, and abuse. and i was seququinty-eyed. i was suspicious. my concerns were not valid

because the banks would never risk their reputations. they would never embarrass themselves. each of my roommates said that exact same line over and over again. but look. i want to be very cleefrmt patriotic americans, they sacrificed to serve their country. it's not personal about them but that problem of captured ideology which rewards that attitude with big pots of gold at the end of the wall street rambo when they leave and the ideology they bring in. that's part of the broken system that needs to change. >> i think what comes out of it is it's a question of do you go into this in the wake of the financial crisis, in the wake of what we know about what was happening viewing the banks as proven get until prove innocent? i think the rational thing would be to distrust the banks after their performance and that's not the way washington has conducted itself across party lines. they're not going to damage their reputation. day after day, libor, the huge

london trade that's losing billions of dollars. every day you're getting new evidence. mf global which we'll talk about soon. yet that trust still stays there. >> again, you don't have to be necessarily distrust them but you have to be realistic about what their motives are and their motives are profit and not to serve the interests of the american people and that's why you needed to have those types of conditions and that's why we're still in the problem we have today. >> i want to thank neil barofsky. an inside account of how wall street bailed out main street. the standoff at the ecuadorian embassy in london with julian assange when we come back. yeah, we found that wonderful thing. and you smiled. and threw it. and i decided i would never, ever leave it anywhere. because that wonderful, bouncy, roll-around thing... had made you play.

and that... had made you smile. [ announcer ] beneful. play. it's good for you.

high stakes standoff continue this morning with british police still surrounding ecuad ecuador's embassy in london and

ecuador still refusing to turn over assange. it has huge possible ramifications not just for international relations but the future of government transparency. the problem for assange started back in 2010 when he was accused of sexually assaulting two women in sweden. a month later he left sweden in the uk where he surrendered. he remained under house arrest where he challenged the extradition to sweden. this june after exhausting his appeals he fled to the ecuadorian embassy in london seeking asylum. on thursday they threatened to forcibly enter the embassy if they did not hand over assange. a breach that would go against half a century of diplomatic riri for reforms. there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or

countries that produced the information disclosed by mr. assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life. he could face possible prosecution, though there has been no indictment and a justice department spokesperson gave no comment when we asked about the possibility. for his part sweden issue add statement the actions of earthquake door is unacceptable and the uk made it clear they will not accept the principle of asylum. joining me now is michael hastings, he's a buzz correspondent. he spent time with them last december.

>> he's a fascinating guy. >> it's hard for me to figure out where i am on all of this because there seems to be a lot of conflicting facts. assange himself as a figure seems a complicated and in some sense a frustrating and maddening figure, also admirable in key ways. the key here i think is when you look at what has happened, one question is how did we get here? i mean he hasn't even been charged with a crime, right? >> right. >> he is wanted for questioning in connection to serious assaults, i mean serious allegations, right? >> and questioning that he has said he would go to the swedish embassy and answer these questions. he just doesn't want to go back to sweden. >> here's the thing. i feel like the wikileaks thing it's like a movie. who can you trust, right? because there's -- why -- if that's the case, assange says i offered the swedes and i'd go

talk to them, am i supposed to believe the swedes have a nefarious plan? >> we need to step back and look at wikileaks. wikileaks in my view is the most snifg can't single enterprise. what he did with cablegate, the afghan logs, pentagon, there's been over 300,000 stories around the world based off the reporting, based on the documents wikileaks have released. almost every major news story you check out there's a wikileaks connection to it. he's angered the most powerful governments in the world. th's why he's in this situation. >> can i ask a question? >> sure. >> given the fact that britain is signaling its willingness to like you said destroy this protocol of diplomatic immunity, why would it be easier for him to be extradited from sweden

than britain? >> the idea that these rape charges are a rouse, why do -- >> he's frad he's going to be extradited from the uk as well. let's take the fear and see fit's a valid fear, right? we know that when bradley manning who was the alleged source of the wikileaks leak butz on trial in this pretile hearing, assange's name was brought up multiple times in the grand hearing. the government is trying to flip bradley manning to turn him against assange to say he's part of this conspiracy to create espiona espionage. >> it is plausible that that is the case but we have nothing to confirm. >> but we know -- we know from testimony, we know from people who are within the bradley manning trials. we know it as you guys call it the justice department and you guys are saying no comment. they certainly want to leave this possibility out there that they can extradite assange. >> how does sweden help them in

the process. >> the minute he goes, he has to face questioning. >> how -- >> sweden doesn't release him. so once sweden gets him they send him over to the united states. it doesn't necessarily make it easier. england is not going to release him right now and they're going to go through this political process and extradite him. >> so my understanding of the theory of the case from the wikileaks folks is this, that britain won't directly extradite assange while there are these questions with sweden. >> they're in line. >> once sweden has resolved whatever it's resolved -- >> my point is -- i don't -- >> we're getting totally lost in the weeds. the reason assange is under this threat is because -- >> michael, no, no, no. that's asserted. no, no, no. >> it's true, it's true. >> no, but michael -- >> no one -- assange being the way he's been treat, if he had not released these very sensitive documents that the governments did not want out. >> how sensitive wi they? >> right. >> you're saying the swedish

government is acting out of its own desire or its's -- again, i'm not saying -- it is clear will i the case that there are many people in america, let's talk about the u.s. government, that do want to punish assange and want to prosecute him. i want to show you a matchup that some of the elected officials have said about assange. that is absolutely the case. it otherwisetown record there are many people in the u.s. who want to punish assange and there's a grand jury impaneled. here are some of the voices called for assange to be tried. >> the fact is that this type of hacking -- this type of cyber theft are really the terrorist weapons of the 21st century. that's why we have to adapt and use traditional legislation, but also i've called to have wikileaks to be called a terrorist organization. >> it sure looks to me on the facts that assange and wicky leak have violated america's

espionage act with great consequence to us. >> i think ooh's high-tech terrorist, he needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. >> these on the table. there are forces in the u.s. government that want him to be -- they confirmed in june there was an open investigation. it's not ridiculous or paranoid to suggest he may be prosecuted, he may be indicted under the espionage achlkt that said i still have to be convinced that sweden is essentially using their justice system and allegations of sexual molestation as essentially a proxy to play a role in getting assange. i want you to explain why we should ta should do that right after this break. with three strains of good bacteria. approved! [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'. olaf's pizza palace gets the most rewards

of any small business credit card! pizza!!!!! [ garth ] olaf's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! put it on my spark card! [ high-pitched ] nice doin' business with you! [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve the most rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? or double miles on every purchase, every day! juicy brats grilled up on a thursday. the perfect use of the 7th inning stretch. get that great taste anytime with kingsford match light charcoal.

we were talking about the extremely complicated situation involving julian assange who's the mastermind, founder, and figurehead for wikileaks operation. he's hole up currently in the

ecuadorian embassy in london. he's been granted asylum by ecuador, but britain says they won't let him leave the embassy. >> he's been under house arrest for 600 days. >> it's clear that there is a con state jency in the u.s. who want to see him prosecuted under the espionage act which i think would be grossly an outrage and imperilism of journalism. if that comes to pass, that's absolutely unacceptable. he's wanted for questions by the swedish government in connection to accusations by two women of a crime that is in sweden called sexual molestation and that is the origin of the extradition battle right now. the question before the break is why should i think -- why should i not believe the swedish gft who is trying to get him to account for his actions? >> i think they are. part of this is the anger of the

swedish government and sort of telling assange like, look, you cannot just answer these questions. have to come back and face the music. that's what they're saying. it's also legitimate for assange to say, look, you're using this as a pretext to ship me off to the united states where i'm not going to be free for the next 20 years of my life. so these also a very legitimate concern. could he have handled it differently, yes. at the time he was working on the cable-gate disclosure. >> to me the complicated thing about talking about this is either you think the charges are legit or you think assange is in danger. i think it's very possible that both of these things are true. i have no doubt that the united states is und stated and that

they're behaving as an agent of the united states in this affair -- >> which they did with i and which they've done in the past. >> again, but my question is so is the uk. it doesn't make sense? >> what doesn't make sense? >> what doesn't make sense -- >> they might actually eventually extradite him. >> they can't now because he's in the embassy. let's hope they don't invade the embassy. >> so that could happen. >> richard, you're raising your hand and i would like you to ask a question. >> yes, please. exactly what he released, how much of it was like sop secret? isn't it really embarrassing cables about the way other leaders talk? i thought it was boring. >> if you don't have cable, you might not think it's boring. >> it was somewhat astute.

people talk the way they talk when they don't think they're being recorded. was there any grave crime? he was probably naked in his cell and waterboarded. >> he was not waterboarded. >> of course, i'm a satirist. >> i'm a literalist. >> that's why we're having fun. assange could be rendered under our laws. >> of all the wikileaks disclosures, they've all been classified not top secret. >> not top secret. that's a key point. >> and there's been no evidence that anyone has come from harm except for career damage but the real reason y the united states government and our western allies got so obsessed about the cable disclosures. it was the cables that annoyed every everyone because it gives an intimate blueprint of what northweste the american em pair looks like. >> was anyone surprised?

was anyone surprised? >> josh. >> this drive mess completely nuts. most of what was released in the cables did nobody any good. >> except the 300,000 news stories that have been based off it, the change -- we know that being lied to yemen about drone strikes h e know there was a spying operation at the u.s. grow down the list we there was a corrupt boxer with the olympic committee that we found out last week. >> that was the most important one. the corrupt boxer. wait. let him finish his point. make your point. make your point. make your point. >> the government should be able to keep some secrets. it doesn't do us any good to know the foreign government of germany sucks. >> it does me good and explas what's going on in the world. >> there's lots of private information that would be fun for journalists to know. pa rt part of it is being

discreet and having tact. they're saying we don't have faith in certain elements of the mexican government? that's a good thing for diplomats? >> is that surprising? >> it's a bad thing when it's disclosed. >> the reason is because they're in league with the drug cartels but the fact that we now have cables that explain what our relationship is i think is a public service that's quite important. and is our relationship with the mexican government totaled because of this. >> no. >> we understand it more. >> the prince pl is not to help the u.s. government. my job is not to help the u.s. government. this showed necessarily some of your guests it's not to help them fill their diplomatic objectives that may not be good for me as a citizen when you have this national security state doing god's work. >> there's value in the diplomatic core in the united states being able to do some of its work in private. and so this is bad not just for the u.s. government but for people who are citizens of the united states and for people who

want a stable diplomatic -- >> what's bad about it? >> hold that thought. hold that question. there's an empirical question. i want to get into both of those a little more right after we take break. okay, here's the plan. you have a plan? first we're gonna check our bags for free, thanks to our explorer card. then, the united club. my mother was so wrong about you. next, we get priority boarding on our flight i booked with miles. all because of the card. and me. okay, what's the plan? plan? mm-hmm. we're on vacation. this is no plan. really? [ male announcer ] the united mileageplus explorer card. the mileage card with special perks on united. get it and you're in.

those are the sounds of a feminine russian group. they have a name that's provocative, you've probably seen it. richard belzer, during a break you treated us to a historical -- >> i miss president reagan because he was the embassy of the country. i could hear him saying, did you

hear about [ bleep ]. >> before we get in trouble with standards. >> i already sent you an angry letter. there's protests happening right now. a little irony. the same russian government has put them in pris snoon oh, the irony. >> let's try to resolve these deep profound questions in the next few minutes about secrecy and the effects. the effects. my sense from my reading and talking to people and i talked to some people in the state department, there was the exposure of some names particularly in afghanistan who collaborated with the embassy. it's my understanding none of them have. of course, that's not definitive. the effects -- and the way you can, i think, flip this around, foreign policy wrote an article

which i didn't find persuasive but it's provocative as far as it goes is not that it's too damaging but wikileaks turned out to be kind of a shrug. it's come to this kind of soap opera about julian assange. i completely disagree with the foreign policy. they tried to diminish wikileaks awikileaks accomplishments. >> assange has basically said that. the whole point you're leveling the playing field of information. >> right. i think wikileaks is assange. i think that's also one of the misunderstandings. cool guy, i like the guy. free assange. but it doesn't happen without assange. the idea that he's failed, and even when under house arrest he's put out files about syria

and private intelligence firms. the idea is what happens next. >> i just want go next. to me the issue is this. it's a very long distance from the principle that there should be some secrecy, that, you know, government should be able to keep some secrets, and the massive, massive explosion of secrecy that we have seen in this country since 9/11 and since the national security act passed under truman during the cold war. there's a lodge way from the principle to the abstract. let's remember. literally, if i'm not mistaken, millions of people had access to what was leaked, right? >> the interests of journalists and the interest of governments can't be the same. you know, you're supposed to -- >> it's adversarial. >> right. the same way prosecutors and defendants are adversarial.

julian assange is on the side of the journalists. they need to do a better job of keeping their secrets. >> josh, you get the last words. >> do you think what the state department does every day is for the greater good of the world and think it is. >> you can think that and think it's a journalist's job to try to bring it. >> it's not clear to me that assange violated any u.s. laws. what he does still irritates me. the government -- >> innocent until proven guilty. that remains to be established. >> we don't know where he is. >> even if the government keep taos many secrets, there are worst. >> michael hastings from fwuz buzzfeed and "rolling stone." it's really good conversation. >> what do we now now we didn't know the last week? my answers after this. [ male announcer ] this is anna, her long day teaching the perfect swing

begins with back pain and a choice. take advil, and maybe have to take up to four in a day. or take aleve, which can relieve pain all day with just two pills. good eye. but last year my daughter was checking up on me. i wasn't eating well. she's a dietitian

and she suggested i try boost complete nutritional drink to help get the nutrition i was missing. now i drink it every day, and i love the great taste. [ female announcer ] boost has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to help keep bones strong and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. your favorite patient is here! [ dad ] i choose great taste. i choose boost.

in just a moment what we now know that we know that we didn't know last week, but first a quick personal update. my book "twilight of the elites" is on sale at your local bookstore. check out twilight of the elites facebook or website at up.com msnat msnbc for details. you can tune in for my talk at 11:00 p.m. eastern as well. what do we know we didn't know last week? police officers in south africa killed 34 striking platinum miners in what has been called the bloodiest security operation since the end of white rule there. we know that crowds of women arrived at the site of the mine yesterday looking for news of family members. we know the police chief claims the police were, quote, forced to utilize maximum force to defend themselves from the striking miners carrying spears and clubs. but we know the president announced the government will open an inquiry of the incident.

we now know the russian punk protest band has been convinced and two years sentenced in prison. we know the band captured the admiration of observers around the world to see a challenge in the authoritarianism of the russian regime. though it has largely gone unnoticed in the mainstream press, more than eight cases of vandalism and attacks on the houses of worship in the u.s. the most horrifying and well covered was the shooting rampage of wade page in wisconsin on august 5th that left six worshippers dead. we know that after 9/11 the fbi reported 500 biased crimes against muslims in 2001. a number that fell in 2009 and rose again by 50% in 2010. the year the controversy erupted over the ground zero mosque.

we also know the name of the suspect in the shooting at the conservative family research council that wounded a security guard there. william corp kicks said i don't like your politics before pulling out the pistol from his backpack and shooting. political violence from this side of the political spectrum is contentable. in america you are far more likely to be targeted for violence because you are gay than if you hold anti-gav views. and we know paul ryan has expressed his love for rage against the machine. the left wing punk rock hard core band that took the country by storm in the 1990s. the guitarest wrote a scathing op-ed that paul ryan's love for the rage against the machine is amusing because he's the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. i clearly see that ryan has a whole lot of rage in him, a rage against women, a rage against

immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor. basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions. ouch. i know if jeff writes a takedown of "up" i'll be devastated. i want to know what my guests know now that they didn't know then. josh barrow. >> this is just over a week old but romney put paul ryan on the ticket and a lot of people believe he's running hard to the right, but i think it is a stronger sign that mitt romney intends to pursue a centrist path in the presidency. if romney is going to try to get policies through a republican-controlled house that they are not predisposed to do, with could who would you want to sell to republicans in congress? the answer is paul ryan. we saw his edition for arguing against the more expanded and more expensive medicare program.

i think we'll see a lot like that from paul ryan over the next four years if the romney/ryan ticket wins. >> i don't believe that's true, but i do believe if you are sworn in as mitt romney on january 21st or whatever it is in 2013, you look at the economy and will be like, man, we need some stimulus. paul ryan, bro, do you mind going up to the house and selling them on stimulus? that i do believe we'll see. it will be all tax cuts. michelle glober. >> i think we have known for a while, but it is especially significant with ryan on the ticket, we are talking about the money, the medicare debate, the medicaid debate is a lot more significant. the romney/ryan plan would decimate medicaid. it would throw the poorest americans, women and children u off the rolls all over the country. it would just be a human catastrophe. >> we'll talk about that tomorrow and focus tomorrow on the medicaid portion of it and poverty's role in this campaign. >> we know when money is speech, millionaires and billionaires get mega phones and the middle class gets muted. we know that because we crunched

the numbers from the fec data that came out. and the adelsons have given a $36.3 million to super pacs. that's a rounded error for them, 0.3% of their net worth. and it would take $321,000 middle class families giving the equivalent amount of net worth to equal the same political voice the two people have. >> 321,000, that's a jaw-dropping statistic. >> i learned two things. my book "dead wrong" is the number one amazon kindle book under the history section. i'm very proud of that because my previs books have been novels and put in entertainment sections. this is a history book. number two, i learned they are misusing ptsd to describe the murders in the sikh temple. ptsd, we can't demonize our veteran that is come home from iraq and afghanistan who have post-traumatic stress disorder. it is not a violent thing. i don't want them to be categorized as crazy and

gun-toting. most of these people come home, they become heroes going through the paperwork at the hospital. >> we had some folks on who, a bunch of veterans in a roundtable talking about this, ptsz witho creating the media stereo type of the broken vet, the person psychologically destroyed. that's important to remember. josh barro, michelle goldberg, heather mcgee and actor richard belzer, author. thank you for joining us today for "up. "join us tomorrow morning at 8:00. we'll have an author of an incredible book "the new deal the hidden story of change in the obama era." coming up next is melissa harris-perry. the republican choice for respect is going there, paul ryan is speaking about it in florida at the world's largest retirement community. melissa will have the speech live including at whether the

election is rigged. that's melissa harris-perry coming up next. see you tomorrow morning at 8:00. thank you for getting up. juicy brats grilled up on a thursday. the perfect use of the 7th inning stretch. get that great taste anytime with kingsford match light charcoal. introducing share everything, only from verizon. a shareable pool of data to power up to 10 different devices. add multiple smartphones to your plan, so everyone in your family can enjoy unlimited talk and text. the first plan of its kind. share everything. get your student a samsung galaxy nexus for $99.99.

[ male announcer ] it started long ago. the joy of giving something everything you've got. it takes passion. and it's not letting up anytime soon. at unitedhealthcare insurance company, we understand that commitment. and always have. so does aarp, an organization serving the needs of americans 50 and over for generations. so it's no surprise millions have chosen an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they help cover some of the expenses medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to find out more, request your free decision guide. call or go online today. after all, when you're going the distance,

it's nice to have the experience and commitment to go along with you. keep dreaming. keep doing. go long. to go along with you. ♪ [ acou[ barks ]ar: slow ] ♪ [ upbeat ] [ barks ] beneful playful life is made with energy-packed wholesome grains... and real beef and egg. to help you put more play in your day. humans -- even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely, other humans. which is why, at liberty mutual insurance, auto policies come with new car replacement and accident forgiveness if you qualify. see what else comes standard at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?