thousands of protesters clashed with police in cairo as massive demonstrations continue across egypt calling for the president to resign. a crude violation the pentagon accused of breaking america's own embargo on buying iranian oil well tehran and rebels in record export cash. dorothy's in turkey say all far left

militant is responsible for the suicide strike on the u.s. embassy in honor of the left one security guard dead. the big picture coming up stay with us here on r.t. . i'm sam sachs in for tom hartman in washington d.c. here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture today the dow jones went over fourteen thousand points for the first time in five years the economy added more jobs in january according to the new jobs report but can the american economy ever truly recover without more federal investments in education green energy and infrastructure we'll debate this issue in tonight's big picture rumble and in the second half of tonight's show we'll take another look at a conversation tom had with susan cain an author and former wall street attorney who understands just how powerful introverts are to our society.

so it's friday night which means we fight or rumble joining me for tonight's big picture marc harrold libertarian commentator and attorney neil munro white house reporter with the daily caller and ben cohen editor of the daily banter and founder of the banter media group thank you gentlemen for joining me let's get started so we have new job or job numbers released today to me out one hundred fifty seven thousand jobs in january employment rate ticked up slightly because more people are out there looking at seven point nine percent another important number a lot of the jobs numbers from last year were revised so that we had an average of one hundred eighty one thousand jobs created each month in two thousand and twelve so i think there's two issues here one when republicans say that the president hasn't created any jobs they are living in a fantasy world according to bloomberg about five and a half million jobs of the eight million jobs lost in the recession i've been in that recession started a year and a half for the president took office have been recovered and two i mean is this the

sort of growth we want to mean a lot of these are minimum wage jobs and can we really have a strong economy until we get some massive federal. simonson infrastructure and green energy and education mark will let you start first of all if you believe the numbers because it's in the government on the other numbers the government scoring themselves based and we've got to say all of that refers to the first one and i don't have any evidence that the raw data but i don't know anybody has any evidence that they're right a lot of these are listed numbers we've ever always you example that they can all be wrong and it's always the government creating itself i'm not going to well i'm ok you know a lot of these are low paying jobs you have a lot of still even when they create jobs take a little issue the president didn't create any jobs it's not that the president's the quarterback it's too much credit when it's good on jobs and too much blame when bad he didn't create them do we need more federal government investment no we need less the federal government to give more and more out of the way the federal government should be paying for the very limited things the constitution tells us to do and nothing else and they should be doing no investment what they should be doing is paying their own way with as little tax money as they can steal and then

getting out of the way and let the economy but i'll let you jump in here just a second but i want to show up with a chart here this is about construction jobs that we've had. and if we can bring up the construction jobs chart here it is right here if you look in two thousand and six we had you know roughly seventy six men half a million people working seven half million people working in construction jobs that's in two thousand and six today we have about five and a half million so if we were just back to where we were in two thousand and six as far as building things that be two million more jobs of people building roads bridges stuff like that we currently have a two trillion dollar infrastructure deficit that's apparently going to cost us three million jobs over the next ten years isn't it just simple don't we invest in infrastructure put people back to work to we can always use construction workers to tear down the rotting houses that the government helped build during two thousand and one we build so many houses we had a real estate bubble that you see in florida that's the government we have and i would like to point out you know reason be intelligent guy watch i can make one

hundred fifty seven thousand disappear to one hundred sixty six thousand of them are immigrants roughly eighty eight thousand of them are new graduates the arrival of these new jobs merely leads to aid. level employment it doesn't actually juice unemployment by one scrap so we can get one hundred fifty thousand jobs per month for ever and we will never reduce the rate something is wrong then where how do we do that how do we reduce the import of the conservative say do with a free market it seems to work wherever it's tried but i'm starting to understand whether this is an r.v. logic all human or affects your argument because for you to say the government is to get out of the way you actually categorically state that the government cannot create jobs well the government can create government jobs the government can do things that help to create jobs in the private sector but it's my it's bad from the three thousand to. two dozen able to push that didn't save the banking sector save certain parts of it but it said you want to road and not save fuel save some jobs yeah but i didn't agree with the bailout it was

a step. back which i definitely didn't agree with but you were you guys see the money comes from yes the bailout saved a bunch of jobs temporarily before it caused the need for the bailouts the first place the government policies you can't tell credit to the that's money going to somebody's pocket with that money they may have created jobs in the process so it's not a real estate bubble was of was the government's fault because just because it's we know this for a fact i'm sorry the government urged pressured bribed real estate companies construction always to build houses like crazy they did we got the bubble and the first thing the progressives did was look around and say who could blame this disaster on the banks this is the problem. this is a banking crisis this is a banking program and it's deregulation or not bribed by the government we know this is going to leave. i think you're right the government is responsible in the sense that the government were didn't get rid of a lot of the regulations around two thousand and nine you know the government created a lot of regulation starting in one thousand nine hundred six that incentivized

threatened and bribed the banks so that if you were in your way sure the derivatives market may have to do it of course you know that has nothing to do with her sleep with what happened to her fifty plausible that. deregulation of wall street exacerbated the consequences of the regulation of the real estate industry it's complicated but government had a central role in creating that disastrous bubble in some ways it helped. minimize the damage after ok i don't want to get into into replaying what happened of course leading into that bubble but in regard to the question i asked you before about why don't we spend two trillion dollars of government money to build roads and bridges you dodge instead we should be tearing down homes what do you think about honestly building roads and bridges and putting americans to work but what it might help but if you could if the progresses are always looking for this thing to repair the thing to damage the already caused and if you focus on another spending program you really distracting yourself from what counts which is giving business men and women the confidence to risk their money and their time how do you create a very simple progressive series on their hands and it means they can't do squat

about the government the government is a little quiet progressives have to admit like you're a problem and you're with a government contracts and the spending less and less money most governments when you're sitting austerity measures possed in pretty much every european country with the most disease officer is really important if we can chart one this is about austerity here we've already had a lot of spending cuts dept put coming down the pike here about a trillion dollars and here's here it is this year in two thousand and thirteen the united states is going to have austerity equating about two and a half percent of g.d.p. which is more than the u.k. which is more than france which is more than spade spain has the highest unemployment rate in the in the eurozone as a result of this crisis in their decision to resort to austerity to solve it in the u.k. is about to be in a triple dip recession as a result of our spirit so here we are going down the same exact path cutting spending getting government out of the way progressive sitting on their hands as you say and it's i mean it's causing economic ruin in europe that's right guys are

wonderful in what they cost. more or less flat spending well you call austerity is a slowdown in growth these people are not really cutting got. and very much they're just moving money around very few countries are cutting and by the way spain is in a truly disastrous situation because yes it had the biggest government sponsored real estate bubble during the two thousand so. called quite cost is called the government sponsored housing bubble when the government essentially deregulated thought out to industry you must understand what having the government regulations was shouting was deregulation them it was really good i have friends that work in. is to cheat seeing reforms to stop that kind of practice last minute let's not let's move on to topic a little bit here let's talk about finance and talk about wall street here first off in new jersey chris christie just vetoed a minimum wage to help working people raise the minimum wage in the state from seven twenty five to fifty if you know it and then he vetoed legislation that would

have given the state authority to buy up foreclosed homes turn them into low income housing for people who lost their homes and even to another piece of legislation they would have given the state the ability to pay off homeowners who've lost their jobs in this recession or are under employed to help stay in their homes to avoid foreclosure their vetoed all those at the same time we see banks we saw wall street past the fourteen thousand mark and we have a new report of adele's spread that shows twelve banks own seventy percent of all banking assets so wall to wall street especially the big banks that got bailed out are doing just fine while homeowners are still screwed there's about three to ten million homes that are still in very bad high and low so here's the question in two thousand and eight set of bailing out the banks what if we bailed out homeowners gave money to homeowners to then pay down their mortgages to the banks these so-called toxic mortgages where would we be today would we be better off we better off if not bailing out the banks are the homeowners because yes well we've got here is crony capitalism what democrats pay their friends on wall street the size of the writer and

a great depression mark is that well i don't think we'd be in the great depression i agree we shouldn't be able to either party out would we be better or worse well we're in a bad shape i don't know if the other way would have worked better i think the governor made the right decision here because there's. first of all when you get into this you're infringing on private contracts they're buying this up their buying poor property we're going to do something good with it that's fine but you're going around you're bailing someone out and again when the government goes and retroactively start bailing people out from either bad decisions or unfortunate times it almost always ends in fiscal disaster down the road it's almost always a kick the can down the road kind of thing it seems good now it get you elected now and it may be well you to move money around on the books but it never makes long term growth because you're bailing people out of bed business is like when we bail out rich people they try to just keep the cash but when we bail out working people they don't spend that money in an economy that generates they gotta want to bail anybody out i agree i don't think we should bail the rich out either i mean i guess it's consistent your position is different consistent but that's not what happens in government you see. this cooper welfare system where you have a free market for the poor and you have a massive social welfare state for the rich which is show you to me to

a certain extent very good with that and we're not going that way as we go to market they have a highly regulated system for the poor where they're forced to use government schools government hospitals who under government these poor people are regulated have the will of these hacks has very little by social control that there was a tax it's very very just social control you they tell you that you don't pay taxes they take taxes and then they give you your money back if you do things they like you get married you buy a house you buy a certain kind of quite a bit of certain money back i don't know how the government the one way that they control used by taxes people make choices to get we're going to go to society is to redistribute wealth when it comes down to it especially when you have the right thing especially when you have a four hundred billion interest enough to run the government do the very limited things the constitution says it's going to do anything else is tyranny no that's if you get it in some form it's not that scary about it it's tyrannical to go beyond the constitution to just do stuff that's a coherent liberal argument for tearing our but there's also another way of distributing money he just give people say ten thousand dollars in cash at the begin the and say now make your own mistakes make your own adventures what we have

now is a system where a whole bunch of middle class and professional people like us get to handle the money as we handed out the poor and guess what we always take ten percent you know if you've got fifty kids. and that we have four hundred people in america one point seven trillion dollars worth of wealth and are just sitting on that money can't possibly spend it so we have roughly a trillion dollars of wealth that sidelined because nobody can spend that much money in their lifetime their kids lifetime their kids good life should get a new program yes can't get what they're sitting on you because you want to much taxes on it you free up the creditors they'll start as they can the real fire that i was in various incidents they write to the manager of the region always right you've got to make it a market they want to change it so they're also scared about spending money it occurred to me that sort of that's why you need government to come in and reassure the market that the economy works government spending helps the economy governor you can come and spend and second how he does or anything i mean the government reassuring me that is the nanny state right on the day i decided that i wanted to get signed ok ok ok i do it and i do trust americans know they go let me make their

own always or there will come back with more more coming up after the break. there are twelve cities in the united states in which half of the people live within a year. this is a problem that. substantially. they were really good. people were really focused on this problem you certainly should be able to.

choose the consensus. choose to. choose the stories get him. to.

and welcome back to the big picture joining me tonight are mark erald neil munro and cohen all right guys let's get back to it i want to talk about president obama in something that the philosopher or linguist professor whatever noam chomsky this is what he said about president obama just this week let's play the clip. is basically. what use it would have been called. several decades ago a moderate republican. kind of a mainstream centrist with some concerns for. liberal ideals and conceptions but not much in the way of principle or commitment and i want to run down a list here quick the individual mandate obamacare originally heritage foundation idea implemented by mitt romney in massachusetts nixon came up with the employer

mandate a key part of obamacare cap and trade that's a republican idea used by republicans throughout history taxes lower under obama than any democratic president in modern history at least he's expanded the war on terror corporate profits as a percentage of g.d.p. are higher than they've been since world war two working wages he's done nothing for unions destruction of civil liberties is the president really a socialist male socialist and by the way. is you really lefty for discussion about this and it turns out chomsky. is. correct yes but the republicans in those days were progresses they believe that they clever people like them could guide citing only good luck mayor lindsey's rick one city after another the mayor obama is not a socialist he's a progress of through our leaders and little mystery just why do these guys call themselves liberals that american education system in the media are terrible they do not distinguish between socialists and progressives americans look for

a word to describe government overreach into business and they go with socialist really he is a progresses he's ok with crony capitalism he doesn't mind the rich really getting rich as long as the progresses are lefty political power and they get their percentage of every deal and that's that's why wall street goes up the banks get bigger so because the president is finding i think on the on social issues that's where he's got his progressive chops are you fighting for marriage equality don't ask don't tell everything like that ok but he but he's losing on drones he's not doing anything about the war on drugs get most still open and on the war of terror i think he's exactly where the defense industry would want any moderate or any i'm sorry any republican or any democrat to be he's made each right there with that issue he's in with goldman sachs and private equity like anybody heard of us here in the cradle think that the president is a socialists are super progressive here isn't that careful about the words and most americans do not know the distinction let's not be mean about it this is or how would you define him he's basically an international internationalist progressive.

distinctly different he's a court he's a cautious but very ambitious progressive as it is he's managed in a way that he's got he's managed to get government by not in control of the health care sector that's a big deal he's grabbing control of the oval sector the student loan sector he's got the issue of the problem of kerry expanded the private insurance sector that's what i mean as a as a as a progressive you know i don't know what your identify yourself to be but i mean do you sense frustration watching the president operate these last four years and i mean. i have serious problems with his agenda i do think. he is a progressive in the fact that he wants to use the government to try and do some good i think that he's a strong political reality that he called there's a lot of stuff he called do you. and in that sense i think to his heart he is more of a redistributionist than he's sort of not having a progressive compared maybe to the past three or two presidents before him but

isn't that a sign that neal you guys have won over the last thirty years that the entire political spectrum has shifted to the right drastically that if someone like president obama is still called a progressive or a liberal when he can he's a tour in britain we couldn't get more exact drawing on saturday but bush politics are different forgive the phrase they're going to have ahead of our children our politics has moved on we're no longer the old left right working class versus upper class it's now we're in a progressive base do we have the clever people the postgraduates aligned with the poor in them and the people in the edge of society in order to go after the center of society basically middle class who have the money and in that sense american politics is very different from historically what he used to and we need not see all this progressive is going after the united states years and everything like that that middle class you're talking about i don't see that happening you've got me on that particular point but my general rule applies the democratic party is the party of the subgroups aligned on the leadership of the progressives to go after

for give to the mainstream the middle the middle class people with the money all right let's talk about guns we have the big senate judiciary committee hearing on guns this week there's gabby giffords there wayne la pierre there. i personally don't think an assault weapons ban is going to make it out of congress i don't think there's any hope of that it barely got out when democrats were you know had a lot more power in congress back in ninety four but there's two other issues two other main issues universal background checks and high capacity and magazines according to a gallup poll this week only eight percent of the nation only eight percent of everyone in. agrees with the n.r.a. in opposing universal background checks put that in perspective more people approve of congress polygamy and human cloning than agree with the n.r.a. his position on background checks. isn't isn't this a no brainer here that we should have universal background checks as at least some part of gun control that comes out of this well this is sort of a poll question somebody calls you up out of the blue and says are you in favor of the environment you know universal background checks what are we talking about how

universal are they i mean what are the actual exchanges for privacy one of these actual way that would be an inroad constitutional liberties i don't know how this would work i don't know if people even i mean the system in england where like a friend of mine got a name that he had to get to since he had to get two psychologists to sign off and say that he has no history of mental illness if i have to let us know that i don't think that any seven when i want to go buy a gun and i want i got to go find two doctors many of whom are against guns most likely i go out and find them i'm going to get two notes to go exercise a constitutional right to have to get to doctor's notes to go vote just to prove i'm not crazy i mean to me this is the idea that there's this universal system i mean if you just hit a button if some guy in the next morning good has access to the universe we should have said that about you that there was a there was a program you quote like almost twelve thousand deaths a year from guns you just had twenty kids massacred in a school to not kid i'm talking about a problem doesn't involve using guns know what's going on with what's yours you date your human nature is a criminal acts are being committed you want to pass more laws which criminal if

you want to pass laws that are going to influence homicide suicide will. criminal what about about what are we talking about it comes out that the weapon you should do what you were talking about is the same sort of mechanism as you are where you talk about this is an order of helmets and you have to you until rosie ok same sort of system you have to do to the time of the value have to you have to submit citizen bleeders have is that your immune system that you've ever made a practice go to you have a mental health odisha where you take your medicine now you are also let's start with the easy stuff and start by actually enforcing the law as it is now and so the national rifle association is out making the reason the request of the administration that. actually enforce the law there was seventy seven thousand cases where people for improperly applied for guns using basic information and this president and his people only enforced about sixty six cases i agree but that leaves enormous into what are you going to sway the gun the gun rights guys to do more gun control when you actually enforce the existing telling once we started forcing the background checks on the sixty percent of guns that do get background checks suddenly then or it would be like ok now you're forcing that we agree the

forty percent that are background checks would be about almost forty percent of our guns passed between our families only a small if you buy on the internet already know someone who's in our family but most of them are not and look basic problem here in this country this country is a big wide spread out country it's very free you've a lot of wild and yeah adventurous people we do have all right we're going to go to the center of our because i real quick real quick is the one thing we have to do is define what universal mean don't we talking about a universal use of the big gun show loophole universal application of the existing check is what i'm hearing when universe was a much expanded check i want to do you want to sell a gun you have to go to a licensed gun dealer and pass the background check to be able to sell a gun any time you want instead of just being on the internet i know we're out of time but now what about our let's talk about let's talk about high capacity in a moment because even there i want to play a clip from the hearing this was mark kelly this was the difference has been talking about what happened in two thousand and eleven in january when her his wife was shot here's the quote. the shooter in tucson showed up with two thirty three

round magazines one which was in his nine millimeter he unloaded the contents of that magazine in fifteen seconds very quickly it all happened very very fast before it first bullet went into gabby's head but what number thirteen went into a nine year old girl named christina taylor green who was very interested in democracy and our government and really deserved a full life could made it to advancing those ideas. if he had a ten round magazine only back up when he tried to reload one thirty three round magazine with another thirty three round magazine he dropped it and a woman named patricia mace grabbed it and it gave bystanders a time that the tackled him. i contend if that same thing happened when he was trying to reload one ten round magazine with another ten round magazine meaning he did not have access to a high capacity magazine and the same thing happened christina taylor green would

be alive today i completely agree do you agree. partly but bear in mind a general rule would be if you're going to have a law for one people it applies to government people so it's going to be a limit on magazines that means all the democrats and progressive politicians who are armed protected by guns should have the same magazine problem to fill in the first artist should have been the drones although the order should have. been guarded the same rules should apply for the governments on the progress of security guards i don't know so the sound stuff i'm going to argue this this murderer dishcloths old nasty murder of these guns and these massive gun sprees they are a main distraction from the real killing fields which is in as we know as we all know chicago where to find progressive policies have left us communities that doesn't involve you should know the weapon of choice of mass shootings that are starting to have addressed the mass killings in the democratic strongholds long ago

by changing progressive policy on this is a. right this is a bit of a very good argument so we want to die. young african-americans more just as much as anyone else so frankly go where the killings are progressive change your policies and the hell out of last word. those communities the most bloodshed boy boy murder but with guns all the most supportive and african-american communities and latino communities where there is much harder portion of gun crime they're overwhelmingly in favor of let's have concealed carry in chicago and ban guns in say texas since our austin and see what happens to the crime rates in these two areas dollars to donuts chicago crime it will. to the slow alston's we're going to i mean this is it isn't it is interesting about it that you have three hundred million guns in america and you also have twelve thousand government as yet in the u.k. we have a tiny tiny fraction of that and so you go where you also have violent movies and i

don't video on days that i think of what i did u.k. i don't need my gun as much as i don't think somebody else has one that a lot of guns in america that's one of the problems you and the people you're going to get the guns from are the ones who follow the law is what they were taking your guns although i do you still have more criminals will not give your demonstration stuff more guns that you told me only the right people yes but this isn't about more or less this is about right this is not theory this is real life this is people living out in the countryside who want to protect themselves all right you should know how to put has a machine gun in a store. which you know you're going to i mean there's been some dylan during the one nine hundred thirty one that's been illegal payments and i mean a lot of us i was in other we're out of time or out of the same thing we're out of time so i'll leave it at that mark neal thanks a lot professional thanks for having me right after the break we'll revisit tom's conversations with great minds with susan page and learn why american society favors extroverts and discuss what can be done to place more value on introverts.

here the reindeer isn't everything for the herders. and when it suffers people do their best to help. but the distances are. then the rooms are. predictable. will the remedy be on time. the first baby steps are joy. folds and poems are not a big deal.