tv The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann RT July 23, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
well i'm tom hartman in washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture are republicans really willing to crash our economy and to do unprecedented damage to our nation just to do with it what to do away with obamacare that and more into night's politics and also goldman sachs is working very hard to screw over the american people yet again we'll talk with economist richard wolffe about the latest way that wall street is raking in billions at the expense of you and me and mobility is alive and well in america and much to the dismay of this nation's founding fathers more on that in tonight's guilty take.
we're opening tonight with a special edition of our green report carbon in our atmosphere is a principal driver of climate change and there's a massive amount of carbon locked up in the earth's northern polar region so nasa has decided to find out exactly how much carbon is in the arctic region and how stable or unstable it might be and how it's reacting to global climate change joining me now for more on this is dr charles miller research scientist and principal investigator of the carbon in arctic reservoirs vulnerability experiments . car of a five year nasa led field campaign studying how climate change is affecting the arctic's carbon cycle dr dr miller welcome. thank you very much for the invitation thanks for being with us is a sleeping giant stirring in the arctic. it's thought that there are approximately one thousand eight hundred billion metric tons of carbon
sequestered in the frozen soils and peat moons and permafrost of the arctic in the northern high latitudes and as much as fifty to two hundred billion metric tons of this carbon might be thawed and available for additional mobilization into the carbon cycle by the end of this century so that's a huge amount of carbon that could provide a natural feedback compared to the three hundred fifty or so billion metric tons that have been put into the atmosphere by anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion since the beginning of the industrial revolution that is a startle him out the you in the amount that you said might be available to be released is so much. expert opinion says that by approximately twenty forty as much as twenty to fifty billion metric tons of the carbon that's
permanent currently frozen in the permafrost soils might become available by twenty one hundred those estimates range from one hundred sixty to two hundred fifty billion metric tons it's extra so by the end of the century you might have. been that would be almost as much as all of the fossil fuel carbon that's been released since eight hundred fifty or so and most of the fossil fuel carbon that's been released has been released in the form of carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas i understand that much of the carbon locked up in the arctic region in the in the permafrost would be released as methane as well as carbon dioxide what are the ratios and what's the significance. the difference between those two gases. so you pose a very interesting question what is the fraction of methane to carbon dioxide that might be released from the mobilization of this otherwise frozen or sequestered
carbon from the permafrost in peat soils of the arctic. it depends a little bit on how climate change affects the arctic in the future if climate becomes warmer and drier than a robot respiration or respiration with oxygen would dominate and we would expect most of this carbon to come out as carbon dioxide if not all of it however if the climate change is warmer and wetter if there's more rain if there is more thought ice leading to more water in the land surface then the fraction of methane would be expected to increase as a result of anaerobic or respiration without oxygen currently it's thought that approximately three percent of the carbon that is mobilized from the frozen soils of the arctic comes out as methane and one of the things that we are testing with the core of experiment is whether or not that ratio is in fact true at three
percent whether it varies from place to place and time to time and whether we can see any potential impacts of climate change altering this fraction is global climate change happening in the arctic is that measurable and if so how is it different from other latitudes. so the climate change one of the reasons for looking in the arctic is that climate change is happening there already. the climate models that we have for the earth suggest that climate change will happen to the largest extent in the polls especially in the arctic over land we expect surface temperatures there to warm by as much as eight to ten degrees celsius by the end of the century and also we expect that the sensitivity of the ecosystems and the other natural earth systems in the arctic to be highly sensitive to these
changes so if you think about it the arctic acts much as the canary in the coal mine for the rest of the earth system you have change taking place there first you have change taking place there to the largest extent and you also have systems there that have the highest sensitivities to these changes this is one of the reasons that led us to pick the arctic as the experimental domain for car could you tell us what a tipping point is and if you see any tipping points potentially being reached in the arctic region and what the significance of that might be. certainly. tipping points have been a fashionable way of explaining a kind of point of no return in the progress of the earth's climate system one of the tipping points or thresholds that we may already be seeing in the arctic is the melting back of the arctic ocean sea ice last year in two thousand and twelve was
the smallest summer extent of sea ice coverage in the arctic since the beginning of satellite measurements more than thirty years ago it's not clear whether or not we will have arctic sea ice in the summers in the future or whether it will just completely melt away might be one of the things that happens another one would be the. threshold for. massive release of this carbon that has been stored in the cold wet and frozen soils of the arctic region if even a small fraction of the one thousand eight hundred billion metric tons of carbon that is currently captured in those soils was to be released it would have a significant impact on the greenhouse gas forcing not only of the entire earth system but concentrated in these high northern latitudes and could then provide
additional warming which could lead to mobilization of more of this carbon and something that would begin spinning perhaps out of control. into a warmer and warmer environment. exactly as you warm the environment that causes the release of more carbon which is either methane or carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that in turn increases the rate of warming which releases even more carbon and you can see how this begins to cause a so-called positive feedback or just an ever increasing amount of heating the we've been talking about carbon that's stored in permafrost in frozen essentially land masses what about the water area the the the north pole is is water are there methane hydrate nothing clathrate locked up you know methane is frozen as
a frozen in water lattice is along any of the continental shelves up there like there are at you know on most of the rest of the continents and more temperate regions. so there are two large potential sources of methane underneath the very shallow waters of the arctic ocean one is permafrost that was carbon laid down when some of those shallow ocean shells were actually still above water. right before the event the beginning of the last ice age and you had the possibility of laying down the carbon from dead in decaying plant matter then that since become submerged underneath the ocean and could possibly be released the other source that you mentioned is called methane hydrates or clathrates this is a chemical complex of water and methane that forms an ice in the
cold and very high pressure conditions at the bottom of the arctic ocean it's thought that these methane clathrates have very very low. arge stored at the bottoms of the ocean that amount is very uncertain as is the mechanism by which it might be released or the timing with which it might be released however there are some models which indicate that longer geologic time scales like centuries to millennia that the warming that we're seeing currently could lead to widespread melting of these methane clathrates and the release of the methane into the atmosphere one thing i should also mention is that the reason that we emphasize the ratio of methane to carbon dioxide so much is that on a short timescale say of order of twenty years methane is approximately one hundred one hundred times more efficient a greenhouse gas forcing agent than is carbon dioxide so mass pre-match methane
leads to one hundred times more warming per release than carbon dioxide does so if the methane clathrates of the methane undersea under the sea were to go that would be much more destructive in terms of global warming than just carbon dioxide coming out of permafrost. yes pure methane release from the oceans any large scale would be a significant greenhouse gas forcing and even a small change in this three percent fraction of methane to carbon dioxide that we believe is currently being released by permafrost or released from the peat soils in the northern high latitudes you know changing it even by one percent so three to four percent would also have a significant impact on the greenhouse gas forcing we have about a little less than a minute left in the we have passed worldwide of four hundred parts per million
point with carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is there a difference in the atmospheric carbon dioxide in the northern latitudes as a. salt of the permafrost melts. the evidence is as yet unclear what the source of the greenhouse gases in the northern hemisphere might be there are some interesting results that are just coming out now that compare the difference between the north polar region carbon dioxide and the south polar region carbon dioxide concentrations from now verse is in the late one nine hundred fifty s. and early one nine hundred sixty s. and in fact the amount of this gradient from one pole to the other has changed has increased markedly since the late one nine hundred fifty s. and it's thought that this is part of the climate change that we are experiencing now ok another major component that we should also think about is the increase in
fires and other natural disturbances that would happen with increasing temperatures in the northern high latitudes and the carbon that that could liberate from the large predator morris i'm sorry we're out of time but thank you so much for joining us tonight very much appreciate it thank you we'll be right back. i would rather asked questions from people in positions of instead of speak on their behalf and that's why you can find my fellow larry king now right here on r.t. question more. welcome
back the g.o.p. does not care about tolerance take a look at this clip from r. and c. rents a chairman reince priebus is sunday appearance on the christian broadcasting network. the g.o.p. is changing and the whole gay marriage situation we want to address this to maybe put evangelicals at ease a little bit or can you put them at ease at all here well a hundred percent i mean the first of all i don't know if i've used the word tolerance i'm sort of i don't really care for that word myself i don't have a problem i just think it has another meaning that politically that can go the other direction i have been brave as went on to say that he believes the g.o.p.'s
principles like its support for quote unquote moral issues important to evangelical christians are fundamentally sound due to out of context the chairman's remarks look just like your typical republican pandering to the rigid religious right remember just four months ago in march priebus unveiled the g.o.p.'s brand new growth and opportunity project a one hundred page report the broke down that party's problems with attracting young people and minorities including that a huge part of the american population saw the g.o.p. as scary narrow minded and out of touch and a party of stuffy old men report recommended the republicans find a new way to talk to people of color people like our country's growing latino population and also acknowledge that there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays and for many younger voters these issues are a gateway into whether the party is a place they want to be in other words reince priebus his own autopsy of the g.o.p.
found that people don't like republicans because they think they're intolerant you'd think republicans would want to do something about this right apparently not in the months since the r. and cs report state republican lawmakers have restricted abortion rights and disenfranchised minority voters all across the country their counterparts in washington have not shown themselves to be that interested in the new open minded g.o.p. either the right flank of the house republican caucus is up in arms about immigration reform and its opposition to a path to citizenship could end up killing the gang. innovates bill all together if you're confused about why republicans just can't get it together embrace change well just take a look at what reince priebus had to say about his party's new path during that same sunday appearance on the christian broadcasting network it's not what it's not what you say i think it's sometimes like our moms used to tell us it's how you say it and so i think that's really the issue and that's right republicans don't
actually care about helping all the people they've alienated and they don't care about the bigoted ideas behind their policies for all of the hand-wringing about the scary party and the growth and opportunity project report the g.o.p. is really only interested in one thing rebranding which is why reince priebus doesn't care for tolerance because real tolerance not the nice sounding talking point kind means accepting social and racial diversity and that just doesn't fit with the republican party's real agenda for more on this let's turn things over to tonight's big picture politics panel. joining me for tonight's big picture politics panel are huey newsome a member of the national advisory council the project twenty one black leadership network a steiger energy editor of the ross story and marc harrold libertarian commentator and attorney and thank you to all of you you all heard my intro tolerance g.o.p. voters are are not stupid i think they're going to see through this you yeah here's
the the here's. republican bashing definitely the g.o.p. is a bit of a pivot point if you will the party has to make a decision on how it's going to embrace all conservatives i don't think that everybody within the republican party is bigoted anti gay cetera unfortunately unfortunately the party does need to cleanse that from its messaging i think to be very critical going forward twenty fourteen twenty sixteen we know demographics are changing throughout the country the key point and i don't disagree with the same and i think that you have to take it in context he really does want to make sure that they stay on message and part of the problem is there's a faction that supports the republican party that expects the republican party to adhere to their principles which is evangelicals the religious right but also at the same time how do you make sure that you stick to conservatives economy lower taxes economic growth making sure the trickle down works and that if priebus can
find a way to make sure that the messaging stays consistent that he might be successful in twenty four to twenty sixty some of this i don't agree with this whole idea that there's a problem that this is just the mitt romney this is just a mismatch problem is also something always just. it depends away depends on what you remember immigration reform the gang of eight half of the gang of eight of eight is republican so you know this whole idea that there are some people that disagree with this or disagree with that it's. not a monolith well i think one of the points that you're missing here though is that with the changing demographics latino young people voters that are starting to turn out in greater in greater numbers are also for their left on economic issues as well and not a real problem public and said figure out but i think you nailed the nail on the head when you're talking about you know are republicans actually trying to change or are they just trying to change the way they talk about it and that's
a real debate within the republican party right now. this can be seen as rebranding for sure but i think the one word i didn't hear in that previous interview was accepted and and i think that that will really resonate with people and not just people but they have people who care about those people their families their friends you know people who know them out work and not something that you know if the g.o.p. is that willing to accept those people and people that care about then i think they're going to start running into those real problems in the rebranding just isn't going to execute that well but mark at the at the very same time that the republicans are talking about rebranding and talking about acceptance you got ken cuccinelli running in a very high profile race for governor of virginia republican on the platform he just doesn't want to log gay sex he wants to outlaw straight sex if it's normal
missionary position stuff in married people's bedrooms i mean this this is big government run amok is it not you know i certainly don't support him on that effort you know the bottom line here and what you have is there's a disconnect i think for the g.o.p. and they're going to have trouble raising money or they've always raised money even jellicoe christians raising money and getting people through primaries with the people that are in power in the party but then at the same time once they get people through primaries they have to have people candidates who are are attractive enough to independents and moderates between the parties who vote with different parties in the general election and i think what you're seeing a little bit is the money's coming from one place and the people that are going to pound in the yard signs and really get energized are more that libertarian g.o.p. that ron paul group that's the most energized college group so i think that i don't agree with them i don't think it's just how you say it i think what people really want to hear i think say and how you say it is not as important as what you say really doesn't give enough credit to the american voter i think what you say is important people can see through how you say it if you don't mean it you know what
it says something on something casey that i think is very important this whole idea that. and already are left of center when it comes to economic taxes unfortunately the numbers say that because of this messaging problem here because the alliance with the left is because the right needs to do a better job of messaging out getting its ideas out and staying on point kind of communicating you mentioned you know making sure trickle down works we've been doing this for thirty two years and rich people billionaires multimillionaires have seen a two hundred seventy five percent increase their incomes top one percent average working people have seen their income in those thirty two years go down four percent. we have to look at diff we have to look at some numbers i mean if you take out the recession if you take out the recession if you take out the session average working people have gone up one right but they. don't realize us so it's still an increase of one difference but still the increase in real terms here's the problem is the problem no one of the channels that we using to make sure that those people have social mobility and that's the question when we talk about the bottom twenty
five percent got this and that we need to talk about social mobility which is an education issue to make sure that we're more competitive with the rest of the globe as globalism increase i agree with you i think we disagree on how they're going to get sexy and i you know republicans over and over if they know things like expansion of you know medicare programs that will actually increase by giving people greater economic security and speaking of which i think obamacare is the perfect example of that obamacare you've got now during an interview on fox and friends yesterday utah senator mike lee again you know spoke to the commitment of the republican party he and the rest of the republican party are ready to shut down the government to defund and block obamacare check this out. right now this is the last stop before obamacare fully kicks in on january first of next year for us to refuse to fund it congress of course has to pass a law to continue funding government lately we've been doing that through a funding mechanism called
a continuing resolution if republicans in both houses simply refuse. for any continuing resolution that contains for their funding for for the reinforcement of obamacare we can stop it we can stop the individual mandate from going into effect well you know a continuing resolution of course is lacking a budget is the way they keep funding the government of k. . if obamacare is working obamacare seems to be popular we're here in state after state you know the brits are going down or the republicans shoot themselves in the foot with things well if they're willing to shut down the entire government over the implementation of this policy which is still getting off the ground i think they will find trouble because people rely on the government for a whole lot more than just their insurance in and as they saw in one thousand nine hundred four it's going to turn around on them pretty quickly but what you're seeing is you have some really hardline right wing republicans funded by the tea party elected and energized by these grassroots tea party groups who have a completely different idea of what government and what governing means and in fact
that means in fact doing everything you can stop. government from working and i think you know that's not really resonating with how government actually works and whether voters will well re evaluate these people you know wealthy if market people want health insurance if they want health care if they want to have a social safety net that includes if i get sick i don't go bankrupt isn't in a democratic republic isn't it the obligation of us of the people want of government to provide them well i don't agree with obamacare i hope that it never fully goes into effect i think it's huge government not just big government and also the fact that after what we've seen with the i.r.s. my concerns about privacy of medical records has gone up exponentially on who's actually going to force in the hands of private corporations and scary well obviously private corporations i don't have the same privacy concerns as the government but that's just me you know the one and one thing about this is you have to remember that era saying if people like you generally have to remember
a lot of these folks are in districts that like said the tea party district they're a small district they run every two years they campaign after every four or five months and a lot of people in their district are saying find any way you can the moderates are starting to wonder how do you know here we are we just about thirty seconds here about messaging right so if you say listen defund a program that allows big businesses to get away with their mandates and they have to agree to there may be a least four year where private citizens still have the mandate to buy private insurance you get a totally different response versus taking away obamacare defunding obamacare so listen why that's only going to affect about thirty thousand is it fair or unfair is the question yes that's the key but that's the whole point about messaging both of which i might leave out of but if you added to that message that republicans have been obstructing implementation of this for for three years now and that's why well we can continue this conversation with more of tonight's big picture politics .
nobody chooses to be homeless no one chooses to me and our sorrow. is it was for the show to. get in the six pm get out six p. six a if. there were a. school day. to me the class before the. days to lure against stewart. it's tough to think about all of them comes to the stage and to know that many may not have only been lost due to won't should never be me but they're also due to for closures they never should have.
welcome back joining me for tonight's big picture politics panel here we knew some case tiger and marc harrold and let's get back to it both the house and the senate intelligence committees democrats and republicans have have agreed and approved the obama administration's plan to to give arms to the syrian rebels on this include small arms ammunition and to take weapons. to but the rebels i mean nobody to the best of my knowledge has been able to define exactly who the rebels are there's multiple factions there in multiple different parts of the country. there's so much reminds me of the one thousand nine hundred seventy s. one nine hundred eighty s. when we were arming osama bin laden and we created al qaeda we you know the mujahideen and in order to throw the soviets out of afghanistan does anybody on this panel think this is a good idea why don't you ok mark you know this is
a bad idea it's the department of defense i think these are the types of entanglements that we've always been warned against historically like you said whether it's not noriega saddam hussein osama bin laden we've always tried to pick the lesser of two evils and try to figure out which type of dictator we want to go with i think we're arming and likely training people that will like in many cases be our enemies years from now and twenty years from now you might be sitting here saying this reminds me back in two thousand and thirteen when we went to syria i mean this is you have to put this in the we never learn category and that's exactly what this is from the from the progressive perspective yeah i mean i think this is one of those things where it's really difficult to execute a foreign policy and execute it well and in a civil war situation like this you know. politically you know it's only risk basically americans aren't that jazzed about going to war especially after iraq especially after afghanistan you know it's
a really difficult situation to navigate the internal politics of the country and it's just really hard also to garner support among americans as well so as this is a political danger to obama there's a downside i'm not sure what the upside is here your thoughts you know the whole thing disappoints me completely because we after what we saw in egypt we had back mubarak. he was there was a coup d'etat defacto coup d'etat morsi was put in place and now he's been overthrown and so we haven't even asked ourselves questions what are we doing to make sure that we're backing the right people people that have democracy and the people in their particular country have a best interest it's very troubling to me that we aren't getting getting to those conversations is very reactive but the problem is this is still flying under the radar and that's part of the reason you don't see a lot of grassroots or you don't see a lot of public outrage or even reaction to i think a lot of americans are also horrified by the continuing reports coming out of
atrocities on both sides if they can they just you know they were really. you know . yeah and i was just going to add that. it becomes so difficult to try to navigate these things but you know when you're trying to both sell it to the american people and you know navigate what the best policy is you know it's just so tricky and i don't know what the best solution is and i'm not necessarily sure but i don't know why not a solution be this kind of out of time on this topic just a real quick question but a solution b. for us to really fundamentally reconsider foreign policy objectives and say you know if we really want to support small d. democratic governance then most of our foreign policy aid is. no longer going to be military aid we'll help you build schools we'll help you build institutions you know of universities hospitals things like that will help you build the things the democratic societies use don't come to us looking for weapons that might impact
eliminate from the taint that american involvement has when we get involved in situations of pride a lot of times you know when americans start to back them thing you know it creates another and another layer of complexity because americans are seen as unwanted and it just makes things even more you know sort of the charlie wilson's war syndrome you know we're even if you win we back out you know hey we promised you some schools but you're not going to do it and you know speaking to us foreign policy disasters according to an internal pocket study government document acquired by the bureau of investigative journalism the cia's drone policy is actually a lot deadlier than the agency has claimed so far a study looked at seventy five different strikes on the afghanistan pakistan border between two thousand and six and two thousand and nine and found that of seven hundred forty six people listed as killed in the drone strikes outlined in the document at least one hundred forty seven of the dead are clearly stated to be civilian victims ninety four of those are said to be children the u.s.
government claims that only fifty to sixty noncombatants have been killed during the entire nine years of the drone war in pakistan so do any of you think that the death of even one suspected terrorist is worth the death of even one innocent child you know this is we really need to be asking ourselves as a question is another thing that we're not discussing enough in them because it's not an american soul we'd be outraged if this is happening on american soil and libertarian i mean really wants to say let's withdraw from all these these conflicts overseas and really start to focus on building at home and having debates over how do we build ourselves at home if there's something that's not clearly in the mirror in our in our best interest this is very concerning and what people need to understand is that this creates outrage just about a. outrage overseas with other you know people from other nations and they see that this isn't just about killing but what is the republican and you say in the republican party is it the rest of lee arguably they've been pushing obama to do
this i mean the more he does this kind of stuff the more john mccain but applauds and whenever he talks about backing off all of a sudden on the right there's you know all this bloviating on the sunday talk shows about obama's weak and foreign policy at this point yes the usual partisan bickering but the conservative to me says trickle down economics. ok yeah i agree actually this is something that's been a huge change in the way we fight wars and has all really happened without much of a public debate and that's really concerning i think it's a debate worth having you know it is is the price of civilians worth it you know if it's the difference between going to full scale war where even more civilians die i mean that's something that we need to actually talk about you know i. don't want to ever see civilian deaths but i think that there is a real question about what happens when you have actionable intelligence but what do you do next and that's a tough one you know i mean traditionally what we did was navy seal teams are
coordinate with local governments are but you know drones are mark adding to this i mean we used to take fighter planes it shot down and one sure i was actually i think he was flying a bomber but in any case under the point is the drones are a lot less risky and i think that's why you know polls actually show the majority of americans would rather we were using drones and f. fifteen well i think they instinctively go to the fact that the drones are unmanned and the plane is not and they don't want to lose american lives you know this is what happens when you have undeclared wars that go on for long periods of time when they're in are woven with the military industrial complex and this is what you get you have these big budget big government programs this one i don't really like the way we get this information this trend there's not a whole lot of transparency of how we're hearing about this we're talking about how americans are accepting. this but this information is coming from a foreign government through a journalist so i would say we need to i would agree with the first part of the libertarian angle that he went with first we need to get out of these things we
need to withdraw treated like the department of defense we need to clear threats to this country we need to deal with in a military fashion but again this is an undeclared endless war and by the time we've done everything else now we're looking for less lethal ways to do what we never should have been doing in the first place or at least have more transparency about what we're actually doing as we saw going to administration has been really unclear about how they decide who they're going to strike who classified as as an invaluable target and those kinds of questions are are real questions that we need to be asking and shouldn't we also worry about the hydra effect kill one terrorist or kill one innocent kid and create ten terrorists or kill one terrorist and create ten more. thoughts of absolutely i think that going forward you talk about going back to the partisan discussions it is part of it that happens if you look look at what happened before the election of two thousand and eight the afghanistan was the good war and now we're starting to see some of the negative calamities of that in
pakistan i don't think there's in this thing as a good work i mean it's just maybe world war two you could build a case for david swanson has a really interesting book that even takes that one so anyhow moving take a look at what harry reid had to say about mitch mcconnell and organizing for action of yesterday. to the tea party leader. that would be mitch mcconnell all of these are going to turtle matthew bevan a kentucky businessman and tea party favorite is expected to primary mcconnell in the twenty fourteen senate race in the same time that he's going to have to run in a general election against a real democrat and so mark how do you see this thing play out and what do you think. how do you think mcconnell is changing his behavior right now because he's up for reelection when mcconnell's had a tough time of it is you know he's in there he's the he's he's got to be
a national leader he's got to run the house he's got to represent his party at the highest level most visible level but he's still also got to go and get reelected with a very high constituency of tea party people who are supported in the past and a lot of it comes down to where he gets his money to you know people are moderates independents a lot of them will go vote but they don't necessarily send any money the people like the tea party highly motivated i think this challenge i doubt it will be successful but the bottom line here is it's very hard to be in certain districts with the paul divisive politics that we have to be a party leader a national leader and also appeal to your district yeah ok yeah i would just add that mcconnell has been very good at getting petro dollars for his own state so you know whether the tea party will use that against him or not wealthy that's interesting it's what do you think you and of course is the pattern we saw this with john mccain we saw this it was to a different degree in delaware with. christine o'donnell and also in nevada with angle although they had i mean you know i am not
a witch in florida messing with you know it is unfortunate i think that what happens is there's so much kicking the killing of each other on the republican side between the tea party and the moderates that they're so damaged in the general and that's what concerns me the most i do think mcconnell will survive and i think the primary or the i think he's going to have a whole thing i don't think dead in kentucky i don't think a democrat can win a senate seat it's too conservative to read a state so i think he survives the whole thing but the question that i'm concerned about how many how many things is he going to say that's going to be used against him in the general or in the general i'm concerned about how many good pieces of legislation he's going to stop or how many bad pieces of legislation is going to promote between now and then because he's up for reelection he's trying to to pander. well or door to somebody else or to some billionaire who's got a check well i'm not going to back every piece of legislation that mitch mcconnell has ever backed all supported but i will say this it is that important is important
to have a moderate and a tea party voice in washington this is the question of the ballots and making sure that we break the noise out from those conversations and said we have to wrap it up so here we mark thank you for being here tonight great to have you're coming up i'll talk with economist richard wolffe about why goldman sachs is more like one of the guests and he's order show than an investment bank.
technology innovation. developments from around russia. the future covered. mission free couldn't take three days for chargers free. arrangements three. three stooges free. download free broadcast quality video for your media projects a free media dog r.t. dot com. download the official application to yourself choose your language stream quality and enjoy your favorite. if you're away from your television just doesn't do so now with your mobile device you can watch on t.v. anytime anywhere.
i was a new alert animation scripts scare me a little bit. there is breaking news tonight and we are continuing to follow the breaking news. alexander's family cry here is a. great thing that has. been found alive is a story made for a movie is playing out in real life. and screw news the big banks are screwing us over yet again and this time they're hitting us in the soda can and investigation by the new york times revealed the big
bank goldman sachs has crafted a sleazy business plan to exploit the pricing regulations of a low. and in turn makes billions of dollars off of american consumers and a group of warehouses outside detroit goldman sachs' stores thousands and thousands of pounds of kids customers aluminum each day a fleet of trucks moves around the bars of aluminum among the several warehouses loading and unloading the bars perhaps two or three times a day this back and forth aluminum circuses linked in's the storage time of the material which adds millions of dollars every year to goldman sachs's bottom line but while goldman sachs is profiting off this insanity you and i the american consumer are being hit right where it hurts in the wallet thanks to a special exemptions granted by the federal reserve and weak regulations of congress goldman sachs's sleazy aluminum shuffle game is perfectly legal even worse the manipulation of commodities pricing doesn't stop with aluminum big banks are
making billions off everything we consume from oil to coffee joining me now for more on this great fleece scene of the american consumer is richard wolffe economist and author of numerous books including his latest democracy at work richard welcome back thank you tom glad to be here so dr wolfe how is goldman sachs pulling this thing off or why why are there not regulations that say that people who are engaged in commodities trades actually have to be counter parties to the trade they actually have to be producers or consumers i mean that's why the the commodities market was invented was it not. yes but you know big businesses have huge hoards of profits and their job is to make profits with their profits so the banks decided some years ago to use their influence and it's enormous to get an exemption a special pass from the federal reserve that supposedly there to regulate them in
order to allow them to go into commodities that is to buy to store or to trade in things like aluminum copper and a whole bunch of other materials so the banks took advantage of this loophole legal to go in there with enormous amounts of money and then they did what we used to call cornering the market they are such a big player they have so much wealth at their disposal that they had mediately become a major store or a major trader of in this case aluminum for goldman sachs another big bank does it in copper another one does it in other commodities and they play whatever legal games they can to jack up the price so that they make a good profit off the money they're using to play in this game look the banks brought us into this crisis in two thousand and seven they have since paid billions
of dollars in fines because they got caught mis telling their clients what the real story was laundering illegal money manipulating the lie bore interest rate in london i could go on why are we surprised if when we allow them to go into yet other areas beyond finance surprise they are doing it again they are doing what they know how to do push the limits of the law to do what's legal and when that isn't enough get an exemption change the law adjust the regulation so they can make a. the goal the endless grasping into their own hands a penny here a dollar there and then we get the inequality of wealth and income that america is becoming the worst case of in the modern world and a financial ization of our economy or an economy that's based on do you want fries with that or hey there's a five dollar charge on your credit card for that is so so elizabeth warren wants
to reimpose glass steagall she's got this twenty twenty thirteen version of it it's been three years since congress passed dodd frank is it even possible now given how powerful these banks are understand from senator sanders six banks now control an amount of cash equal to sixty five percent of the u.s. g.d.p. is it even politically possible to reregulate these guys or are we just going to have to wait for some sort of disaster to wake people up but i think that the the answer is in your question most americans know already that these big banks are in a position as are large corporations outside of finance to buy their way into the laws they need the regulations they need the politicians and others looking the other way as they need even if we regulate them over here they move over there and by the time we follow them over there they have weakened or amended the regulation in the first place after
a certain amount of this game you think the american people would realize if you want to stop this process you're going to have to do much more basic change than another law another regulation just to have this game played again and so for me the stunning thing and the thing i would want to leave with your audience. when you have this kind of behavior documented by every official agency now by the new york times last weekend with this new story of yet another scale finally there ought to be a debate in the united states how can we allow something as important as the basic commodities and the basic money we need to run an economy be held by private enterprises that substitute their own profitability for the social need it's ridiculous and it's long past time that we really face the question couldn't we be better served if our banks and our other large corporations were reorganized so
they really were responsible to the consumers they serve and the workers they employ rather than the shareholders and investors who want them to be profit machines dr richard wolf in the minute and a half or so we have left twelve million americans are still unemployed and you probably double the number of include underemployment or you know working two in three jobs is the time contra congress did something like a comprehensive jobs bill. absolutely i mean if we have our own american history to to remember here in the one nine hundred thirty s. when the private sector having been induced having been begged having been pressured by the politicians led by the president roosevelt when that it didn't work the private sector didn't employ people just like it's not doing today the president went on the radio and television and said ok if the private sector either cannot or will not hire the people then it's me the president and the congress we
have to do it and between one thousand thirty four and one nine hundred forty one they created and filled twelve and a half million jobs of course we can do it of course we should do it the only amazing thing is the control of the wealth that doesn't want the competition of full employment doesn't want workers to be self-confident because they all have a job and so they can't be kicked around they can prevent it and the docile politicians have forgotten how american history teaches though the practicality the benefits of a public employment program if you just if you just tax these corporations half way what ought to be done the money would be there to do precisely that dr richard wall thank you so much for being with us tonight sir my pleasure.
yesterday the british royal family welcomed its newest member when kate middleton the duchess of cambridge gave birth to a baby boy we all got a quick glimpse of the yet to be named child earlier today and while the baby boy may not realize it now he's been born into a family of extraordinary wealth and status all the positions are mostly ceremonial today prince william kate and the rest of the british royals still represent no bill. the same nobility that our founding fathers fought to escape from nearly two hundred fifty years ago when george washington the rest of our nation's founding fathers first stepped foot on american soil their wealth was nothing compared to that of european royalty in fact america didn't have a millionaire until the middle of the george washington administration our nation was formed because our founding fathers wanted to escape the clutches of british royalty and nobility and build a nation that was free to govern itself and thrive on its own with out world
dictatorship that's why time and time again there been efforts made to control royalty and nobility right here in the united states from lincoln's land grant colleges to roosevelt and taps trust busting f.d.r.'s new deal l.b.j.'s great society the goal of america has always been to ensure that everyone has an equal chance at living a appy and comfortable life in fact while mitt romney and donald trump so the world who each inherited millions from daddy may argue otherwise the real american dream isn't about being a billionaire businessman or a mega rich oil tycoon. the real american dream is about being part of a flourishing middle class which allows you to live comfortably your entire life all the way up until the day you die and for many years americans thrived under this vision of the american dream forty years ago a strong and stable middle class was largely a reality in the united states but everything changed when reagan came to
washington and as a result nobility is alive and well in the united states according to the pew research center in one nine hundred seventy one sixty one percent of american households fell under the middle class designation today that number is fifty one percent and right now thirty five percent of u.s. households live on thirty five thousand dollars or less each year so as the middle class in america continues to shrink it should come as no surprise that a new study out by the new york times reveals that american children have very little chance of climbing out of the social and economic class that they're born into or in other words social mobility in america is almost nonexistent according to a new york times study one of every three thirty year olds who grew up in the top one percent of the income distribution was already making at least one hundred grand in family income by the age of thirty among and among adults who grew up in the bottom half of the income into distribution only one out of twenty five had family income
of at least one hundred thousand dollars by age thirty meanwhile as social and economic mobility have decreased income inequality has skyrocketed income inequality has increased in nearly every state in our country over the past three decades and clar thanks largely in part of the fact that incomes for the wealthiest twenty percent of americans are eight times greater than those for the bottom twenty percent like it or not the very nobility that our founding fathers fought to free themselves from has reemerged in america today much like britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries america is now. the land of the haves and the have nots we need to rebuild the united states of the the middle class here in the united states we need to do it right now that starts by keeping good jobs right here in america and bringing back the jobs that we've already shipped overseas at the same time we need to restrain corporate monopolies and prevent giant
transnational corporations having too much control and too much power next we need to continue working to remove money from politics and take away the influence the billionaires have on our democratic processes and we can't possibly hope to have a strong middle class again if we don't roll back the reagan tax cuts so the wealthiest americans would once again pay their fair share to help support and bolster the american economy every american deserves the right to be successful and the right to be able to live comfortably for their entire life. and that's the way it is tonight tuesday july twenty third two thousand and thirteen and don't forget democracy begins with you get out there get active occupy something tag you're it suitable.
is it possible to navigate you carney with all the details of his diction misinformation and media hype you up to date by decoding the mainstream. if in your mind. please. more news today. again fled upstream from these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. showing corporations are only day.
please. today on larry king the stars of franklin's bash mark paul goslar and brechin myre on their new costar had a lock where we're both nude in the scene with her sitting next to her with our codpieces on the phone. and i call mine as a cod on being a part of two iconic ninety's hits you a fan of the child was a friend of that show that this is the set once you go in makes up these stories i did not make any of you are not nice and you had weird yellow hair a new route plus i have a hundred bromance sure yeah who knows that that's next on larry king now. was in a lair.