what we have seen in the clinton administration, of which are was very proud to be secretary of labor, that when we raise taxes at the top, when you expand infrastructure, when you build the economy from the bottom, you get a sustained recovery is, and you get a larger middle class with an upward mobility. >> "the new york times" did a story about the clinton administration when you were secretary of labor, and they found now 15 years later more women and children are falling into poverty than ever before, primarily because that program did not work so well, and peter was right about stepping down because he disagreed with that approach. your thoughts about about welfare program, since we are hearing so much about welfare once again. >> i was very much against the president's signing the bill. ihought it was the third bill the republicans sent. i thought he should hold out for a much better bill. the problem is it only provides a limited amount of time, five years when somebody can collect supplemental benefits and welfare, and if the economy is doing fine or if you have a normal patt

a georgetown professor and former clinton administration official. out with a new text about poverty in america. his thoughts on what the growing divide between the haves and have-nots means and why the issue does not have the attention of leaders in washington. a conversation with peter edelman coming up right now. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it's the cornerstone we all know. it's not just a street or boulevard, but a place where walmart stands together with your community to make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. tavis: peter edelman is the founder and director of the center on poverty, inequality and public policy at georgetown and a former assistant secretary at the department of health and human services. he's also a noted author whose latest text is called "so rich, so poor: why it's so hard to end poverty in america," and i am honored to have peter edelman on this program. thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. thank you for having me. tavis: no, it's my

if you look at the clinton administration, which was so effective at this, they brought in donors to the white house and let them stay overnight in in a lincoln bedroom in exchange for donations to the dnc. that may have crossed the ethical line but they gave access to top financial backers. the obama campaign has shooed this type of donor maintenance and those who are high minded in their giving want that recognition. >> eliot: the lincoln bedroom is probably the most expensive leaveoversleep over in history. president clinton loved hand-to-hand donations barack obama doesn't. >> they are not getting anything. they don't feel like they're getting anything in exchange for their donation. yes they want him to win. i talked to a representative for peter lewis the progressive insurance magnate who gave around $20 million or more to the 527 groups who was supporting john kerry. that left a bad taste in many mouths yes peter wants barack obama to win but he wants want to give to the super pac. i don't see him coming back to the game. >> eliot: this is personal experience. i knew peterly w

secretary of defense and during the clinton administration and osama bin laden was clearly someone -- we had the kind of precision we had, for reasons having to do with potential for mass casualties we didn't always take advantage of it. but today is a different day. to the instrument i think you have to be as much as possible to incorporate it in your overall strategy and how you deal with sovereign nations so if you do use it will be in that as well. in the case of pakistan which is my biggest frustration, national security adviser, could never get a clear sense, what the pakistani military was willing to do more not willing to do. it became clear but in 2009 we hope we would have a willing partner that would help us by eliminating the safe-haven for terrorists and vote leaders who went with it. when it is clear they were not going to in order to reduce the number of americans being killed and allies being killed in afghanistan we had no choice but to go after the leadership and a tactical targeted way with tremendous excess. the lesson here is you want to get within the envelope of

meantime, the nasdaq aiming for a close i high stretching back to bill clinton administration. it could achieve the highest finish since november 15th, and vamp on that later on in the show. for now, let's get to bob and rick. bob, first to you. i want to ask you. you keep menging the most hated stock market rally of all time. why? >> because traders don't believe it. traders betting against it rather aggressively. people out of the market because they don't believe the fundamentals justify the highs. my point is fundamentals may not but the intervention of the central banks, it's very much in evidence. high volume here today. 25% higher than normal. twice normal volume in spain. new highs in s&p, nasdaq, hoemd bui home builders, brian. people starting in the exchange traded funds covering right now. this is very heavily traded today and betting against some of the big bank stocks again. short covering here, as well. brian? >> yeah. amazing volume in europe. great point. thank you. before getting to rick, i want to jump in with a market flash of brian shactman. >> qqq which tra

in the clinton administration when gore ran he was against it because it was so unpopular. when kerry ran, he was against it because it was obviously unpopular. but that jobs was obamacare. but the socialist future was totally illogical, was not political minimal sense of politics, didn't make any kind of sense in terms of what was facing, but was pushed through by what we described in this book by these foundations. >> with the possible exception, it was cited by people how did the last takeover organizations. >> i can give you an example which ms. i think kind of stalled, a foundation committed $2 billion foundation in colorado, which we mentioned in my book and it was formed by a gentleman and the people, the board at the foundation wanted to run a professional foundation. so where did they turn? the ford foundation and before they knew it, they had a whole staff of leftists. i happen to know people in the lord hath applicants were dismissed and so forth. this happened in part because of that, but there hasn't been enough publicity about what the ford foundation actually

in the clinton administration over 200,000 was average for eight years. and we need to do a lot better than average to climb out of the hole that we are in now. i i think while it would be nice to have a number over 200,000 that is not enough to deter the fed bernake and the majority. unless we get a number north of 300 000 that is not likely at all that is not going to be a deterant to the fed. recent numbers about the housing have been encouraging. what is your take on the health of the economy right now? >> i think it's looking a littlt better is not enough better. since we started recovering from the deep recession the growth rate has been little less than 2 and a half percent. those numbers that you are referring to susie are consistent to the scenario and that is not good enough and that is what has the feds concerned. allan blinder. >> europeer's financial >> tom: another hot topic at that meeting in jackson hole, europe's financial problems. until policymakers solve that crisis, bernanke and others say europe could weigh on the u.s. economy. here'

grundman who analyzes and reviewed defense mergers and acquisition at the pentagon during the clinton administration and he advices defense and aerospace companies worldwide and has absolutely no stake in this particular transaction. >> no. right. that's right. >> thanks very much for joining us. so, this would be just an enormous company. boeing is at 68 billion and the number one slot. and the guys would displays them. what does this mean for the global aerospace and defense industry. >> i don't think the absolute scale of it or the rank of them has a big significance for customers or shareholders. it's a matter of prestige. i think it excel rates the attention -- excel rates the attention cooperate strategists and regulators planned to give to restructures. it gets a ball rolling i pected to take a few more years to get rolling. i think that's the first big significance. >> and what are some other sort of knock off effects we will see from this do you think? >> first,. >> where are they in the process because twoness it was disclosed and both companies contermed itthey stopped talk

in the clinton administration, the decline of union rates have continued. it is not the law. it is something they are selling, and they need to get their message if they want to turn around the rate. when you see things like the chicago teachers strike coming up, and the average employee making something like $70,000 a year and turning down a wage package of something like 16% over four years from rahm emanuel, i think there gets to be a perception problem with regard to unions that they have to deal with. there's a potential strike coming up on the east coast, and if that comes up, the unions will have a problem, and they may be shutting down ports during christmas time, not a great puerto rico move, but you should read a report that came out of new york on the unions involved, and ancestress relationships -- incestuous relationships in the third- bedding. i will skip polling and good to regulations. lately, costs of regulations on employers have gone trivialized lately in some of the comments made at the conventions. regulations are a big deal to employers. a study came out

it started in the clinton administration. it moved away from a government monopoly version of public training programs. they were told this was the training program you go into to one that is driven by individual choice. we try to come on with a plan in a market of different providers and voucher-type programs. that has many wonderful properties. . it has a lot of potential to operate well and not just have poorly functioning programs. if you have people who have medical systems, have interests may not work that great if you have no clue what you are doing. losing a job is a stressful activity. there are people who can make profits by providing you with mud -- what one not be the best training program in the world. we have the via route -- evaluated government training programs on short-term targets. but we will need to do it as we move into this direction with a lot of potential and work on experimenting and make the work it -- market work better. it shows a little bit when you combine that with serious information attends a

and we know what to do under the clinton administration in terms of how to build a balanced economy where everybody can get ahead. >> schieffer: what do you think of having bill clinton here? he does have good things and bad things in his past. >> well, i think for all of the reasons that miss cutter just outlined, i think it's going to electrify this place. let's face it, look, ideology doesn't move our country forward. we have to do the things that we know work, and what we did in president clinton's years was to create jobs, was to make our middle class not only stronger and more secure in their own homes, but to give their children better opportunities. this is all about opportunities that grow our middle class. bill clinton did it. and you know, bob, at the same time he created a surplus when he had been left by ronald reagan a big deficit. and ronald reagan and the first president bush. and in the same way, though, i mean, he did not do that in one term. he did not do that in one term. and i think it's important to remember that. >> schieffer: let me ask you about that. can you hone

what we have seen in the clinton administration, of which are was very proud to be secretary of labor, that when we raise taxes at the top, when you expand infrastructure, when you build the economy from the bottom, you get a sustained recovery is, and you get a larger middle class with an upward mobility. >> "the new york times" did a story about the clinton administration when you were secretary of labor, and they found now 15 years later more women and children are falling into poverty than ever before, primarily because that program did not work so well, and peter was right about stepping down because he disagreed with that approach. your thoughts about about welfare program, since we are hearing so much about welfare once again. >> i was very much against the president's signing the bill. i thought it was the third bill the republicans sent. i thought he should hold out for a much better bill. the problem is it only provides a limited amount of time, five years when somebody can collect supplemental benefits and welfare, and if the economy is doing fine or if you have a normal pa

22 million of course created in the clinton administration. we had a lot of talk about that in our convention. i didn't hear anything about the bush administration. the record was certainly hidden. we care about jobs. we care about people getting to work. we also care about helping people. we can do both. defeat this bill. black is not white and whoit is not black -- white is not black and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to a member of the member, subcommittee chair, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker, mr. chairman. 8% unemployment for 43 straight months, i think the record speaks for itself. i come from a state, the great state of michigan where a governor like a number of others in this great country now are trying to do everything possible to undermine the malaise that is going on in e

it is not the clinton administration. clinton wanted to do hillarycare and then the republicans came in and big government was over. you don't see any give. fiscal cliffsible with tax increases and the sequestered, because it's coming. neither party willing to go anywhere down that road. host: the republicans could win control of the house and senate and the white house and are pushing things off to the lame- duck session. guest: they have done that except for the spending bill, they decided nothing of substance will get done. if they were to get a short-term extension on a farm bill, it would be a feat. this puts a lot of pressure on the lame-duck. this has been the plan all along. if you see the house schedule, a house has been counting on going into session after the election since the beginning of the year. they are counting on four weeks or five weeks of a lame duck. there will be a lot of pressure on the lame-duck to avert a tax increase and a sequester. the sequestered came up on the campaign trail as well. people

that law was repealed during the clinton administration. the bush s.e.c., that stands for securities and exchange commission, and there are rules changes in every administration for the s.e.c., he is making the points there is no evidence that any particular rule change in the s.e.c. had anything to do with the financial crisis. so it wasn't the tax cuts, it wasn't the deficit, and it wasn't deregulation. what did cause the recession? a.e.i.'s peter wallisson has put it this way. -- quote -- "the financial crisis was the result of government housing policy. fannie mae and freddie mac were the implementers of a substantial portion of the government housing policy. i would noald republicans in congress tried to reform fannie anded fromy but we were opposed -- freddy but we were opposed in the house and senate including then-senator barack obama. most experts will agree that the biggest reason for the collapse that occurred after 2006 was the housing market. the sale of all of these mortgages that weren't worth the paper they were written on a

administration and said look you know mindy we can we can take you're spending two hundred fifty thousand per unit on on construction of housing let me you know let's move that and to single family homes out of the foreclosed property we can get five homes for the price of one and she said but how would we generate fees for our friends so the way we've resolved these tensions is you know we've just paid everybody off with fees for our friends we now have a federal budget that that does not optimize return on investment to taxpayers by pay you know by place if anything we're we're paying both companies and people whether it's on corporate welfare welfare to do things that make them stupid or the whole thing makes absolutely no economic sense the question is how do you change because you've you know you've result the tension between these two groups by just you know spitting out and printing money and that's not going to work starting next year if not this year the pain is going to get greater and greater and that is why one of the biggest issues in this country the second biggest issue rig

. >> dana: if everything was going great for the obama administration, they would haven't had bill clinton in primetime spot. going to independent voters and working class voters, he appeals to them or he had. but i don't know nip longing for good old days of the clinton administration. >> bob: i think they longing for the clinton economic days. >> dana: actually, there is -- i read a lot about this in the past few days. there is not a single economist who thinks that raising taxes in the middle of a recession is a good idea, including president obama. which is why the sale he has to make on thursday is perplexing to me. how they are going to put the speech together. people want to look toward the future. elections are about the future. we're all -- their opinion, their hope on the speech by the former president. >> bob: who will say i raised taxes in a recession and had the greatest eight years in history. >> kimberly: that's leadership when you go back to bill clinton -- >> bob: even goes back to somebody. >> dana: surpluses they talk about. he is a guy that tells you hey, there is $200,

president clinton reminding the world that his administration raised taxes, grew the economy, balanced the budget and made a national surplus over what had been the national debt. actively trying to downer with his own record charging that president obama would damage the economy by getting rid of the bush tax cuts. >> people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. what new ideas did we bring to washington. i always give a one-word answer. arithmetic. arithmetic. >> doesn't that word make you want to hear from ezra klein about whatever arithmetic is being applied to? what do you think about the case he made about his own record on the economy and debt and taxes? >> a 48-minute policy speech is sort of speaking my language. when he says arithmetic, he is meaning a particular part of it. what he is there to do, a particular missile for the obama campaign on is the plus sign in arithmetic. his argument is the republicans have before him and after him, they only focus on the minus. they only focus on what you can cut from the budget if they, indeed, do cut that. under

now, we saw this so often with the clinton administration. now you're seeing it with the obama administration. come out with a dollop of information that might sound right, but when you look at it carefully it's not right at all. they're blaming with the people that came up with the evidence that said it was a terrorist attack. they're blaming them for it now. >> sean: look, simple questions of this president has never been asked. mr. president, you said you'd cut the deficit in half in your first term. it went up $6 trillion. you called bush unpatriotic for $4 trillion in eight years. simple question. mr. president, you predicted if we passed your stimulus by now we would have created 8 million new jobs. they still have fewer americans working. you know, mr. president, you said you'd b transparent. can we see the cables and wires tomorrow? when can we see them? >> how about this, mr. president you said you were taking our foreign policy in a different direction. the middle east is in flames against america and our ambassador is dead. mr. pre

administration or newt gingrich, i would have been able to work out this deal. whether that is the case or not, certainly, the president has a very strong argument that there is less flexibility in the house republicans now than there was during the gingrich era. >> there has been some criticism of the book. guest: i guess this person did not read the book because you repeatedly have themes. for example, when speaker brainer it is considering whether to except more revenue has -- when speaker boehner is considering whether to accept more revenue as the president has proposed, eric cantor goes to his office. and cantor has the ties with the tea party and boehner lays out his proposal for more revenue and steve stone breeze, who is the chief of staff to eric cantor, who is in touch with the tea partyers to say the least, i ask, how many votes do you think you could get for that additional revenue and the speaker says about 170. and he says to him, "you are crazy." that is not something you see very often wear a staffer tells the speaker to his face that he is craz

he was former counsel to the clinton administration. his legacy is secure. but still 30 million people based on what we saw last week who will be watching. >> i haven't talked to president clinton in a while. based on my long years of knowing him, this is a big deal for him. to be invited by president obama to make it case which i think bill clinton does better than anybody in public life is what he loves to do. secondly i think all the personal stuff about 2008 and memories and i certainly have a lot of memories about some tough words that were thrown at president clinton by the obama campaign that were very unfair. tonight is about policies and issues that we all agree with. and don't agree with mitt romney's approach. so you will hear bill clinton i predict talking about the common policies and issues that he shares with president obama versus strong disagreement but respect for mitt romney and paul ryan. megyn: there will be no damning barack obama with faint praise. it should be a true recommendation and endorsement. >> i know bill clinton fought for na

. >>> ahead this morning on "starting point," worked in both the clinton and obama administration, rahm emanuel with insight into what president clinton will say tonight. >>> apple's new product one week away from what could be the iphone 5. i definitely need one of those. details up next as "starting point" continues from charlotte, north carolina. and then, in one blinding blink of an eye, their tree had given its last. but with their raymond james financial advisor, they had prepared for even the unthinkable. and they danced. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you. ♪ lord, you got no reason ♪ you got no right ♪ ♪ i find myself at the wrong place ♪ [ male announcer ] the ram 1500 express. ♪ it says a lot about you. ♪ in a deep, hemi-rumble sort of way. guts. glory. ram. nothing complicated about a pair of 10 inch hose clamp pliers. you know what's complicated? shipping. shipping's complicated. not really. with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service shipping's easy. if it fits, it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. that's not compli

thrnnctaed which has an ugly name, was one of the really good deeds of the clinton administration. he really boosted that up. and if you rember classic clinton rhetic, it was always about people who work hard and rdhe inyesle in he and so again, i think that clinton's gift for obama is he has a way of explaining what for most people are complicated and distant issues and bring them back down to earth, which is why you're right. they should keep the global initiative going. >> thanks for joinin. >> thanks. >> coming up, rupert murdoch has funded an anti-mitt romney video. o could get him to do that? the answer is in the rrite. llheand late rosio dson and we'll talk about the voter registration drive today and the other issues facing the campaign. [ engine revving ] ♪ must make adrenaline pump and pulses quicken. ♪ to help you not just to stay alive... but feel alive. the new c class is no exception. it's a mercedes-benz through and through. see your authized edesenea focenafe through mercedes-benz financial services. who have used androgel 1%, there's big news. presenting androg

administration. where are the letters and where are the e mails? in other words what is the administration trying to hide? secretary of state hillary clinton asked about this report as it began to develop last week. let's take a look at this. >> there is one report suggesting that ambassador stevens felt that he was on a qorkts al qaeda hit list. sf this a rumor? and is there something more to what he allegedly, i stress that order? as to the final question i have no information or reason to believe there is any basis for that. >> there, you have secretary clinton claiming she had no knowledge of the security concerns but she wanted you to believe this was not premeditated and the result of a spontaneous mob protesting a you tube video released in july. but in light of the handling of the situation i am not ready to take secretary clinton at her word ask a proven fact does exist the ambassador's warnings worried more while his family deserves to know the truth. not only that, they deserve better from

bill clinton in '96, there were 25 million americans on food stamps in the clinton administration. after the welfare work rules were tightened up, 17 million. so it dropped 8 million. 33% drop. the case loads plummeted. 50% in the welfare arena after congress, newt gingrich and bill clinton -- >> it's wonderful. >> bill: we all agree that what they did in '96 was good for the country, for the poor, for everybody. we all agree? >> actually for poor people, yes. >> bill: so why on earth would he want to water that down? he being president obama? why would you want to do that? >> because states within to experiment -- >> bill: wait, wait. who cares whether states want to experiment? if the federal law is working for the good of the country. what do i care whether delaware or california wants to do something differently? why should i care? >> because over time, none of these federal or state or local, either laws work well. i send an intern out to these job centers to see what kinds of help they gave. they all just directed her to handouts. she had to struggle to get help. >> bill: if

administration. so where are those letters? where are those cables? where are those emails? in other words, what is the administration trying to hide? now secretary of state hillary clinton was asked about this report as it began to develop late last week. let's take a look at this. >> there's at least one report suggesting that ambassador stevens felt that he was on a, quote, al-qaeda hit list. is this a scurilleyous rumor? >> i have absolutely no information or reason to believe that there's any basis for that. >> sean: there you have secretary clinton on record claiming she had no knowledge of ambassador stevens' security concerns, but also keep in mind she wanted you to believe that this assassination was not premeditated and was the result of a spontaneous mob protesting a youtube video which, by the way, was released in july. forgive me, in light of the administration's handling of the situation, i am not ready to take secretary clinton at her word, and prove in fact does exist that the ambassa

they struck four times in the clinton administration, once in the bush administration and now once in the obama administration. this is an ongoing war too. debates about foreign policy are absolutely a vital part of our democracy, and i don't know why the media is rushing to criticize barack -- i mean mitt romney for criticizing a foreign policy when they did not do that to barack obama or john kerry when they exercised their right to criticize republican foreign policy. >> cornell? >> two quick things. one is, it's apples and oranges. that's just not a fair comparison. and a fairer comparison would be what democrats did directly after 9/11. and, you know, on the 12th, you had statements by people like hillary clinton who at that time was then senator clinton and seen as a very partisan figure, who said we stand united behind the president. that's a leadership -- that's what leaders are supposed to do. the other part of this, which is now disturbing, is it's okay to sort of say that mistakes were made. you know, as people work in this industry, you know, we sort of have a responsibili