tv Cashin In FOX Business January 3, 2016 3:30am-4:01am EST
the guys who run the company have been buying a lot of stocks. i will go and follow them. >> decent management. a little rocky period with earnings growth. ttttt for forbes on fox. happy new year, everybody. here's eric. >> a tax to take out isis? there is a push in d.c. for a temporary surtax to take care of the war on terror. do americans need to shell out more money to defeat islamic extremism? hi, everybody. welcome to "cashin' in." jonathan hoenig, michelle fields and jessica tarlov are the crew this week. as of november 30, the u.s. spent nearly $5.5 billion on the war against isis since 2014. no surprise democrats looking to tax us to keep us safe from terror. that $5 billion is peanuts compared to money we spend on liberal programs every year and they pale in comparison to keeping us safe.
michelle, do we really need a tax to pay on the war on isis? >> no. they say this is going to be a temporary tax. we're not that stupid. there is no such thing. they are using it as a way to get more money. we're not in debt because we are fighting isis. we are in debt because our entitlement spending. if they were serious about tackling the debt, talk about entitlement reform. we don't have a problem paying for the war on isis. we have a problem with the strategy. we are taxed enough. they have plenty of money. they need to figure out what the strategy is. >> we did homework here and it comes out to $11 million a day. frankly that seems like peanuts compared to other things we spend money on. >> true. >> we spend over $15 billion per year fuelling our vehicles. we lose over $6 billion a year with the u.s. postal service. i think fighting isis is a better use of our money. >> you're making the point about
cutting the size and scope of government. i like the idea of a tax on the war. if nothing else it will force us to declare war officially. the first income tax came out because of the civil war. to your point, michelle, it never went away but wars cost money. it's paid out of the income of the citizens. >> breaking my heart, jonathan. >> if you support a war you should pay for it. >> we spend somewhere around $750 billion in the department of defense already. what about that? >> we could spend less if we -- that's the whole thing. this would force the commander in chief to actually be accountable to the people to be more judicious and serious about winning the war.
yes, we should always cut government spending. we make that point time and again. all we need is not to spend more but to focus on winning the war. a tax would do that. >> we have two conservatives who are against taxing more. one conservative, libertarian in favor of using the tax to make us be serious about the war. break the tie up. >> i don't know if we'll break the tie. to jonathan's point starting in the war of 1812, the only wars we haven't changed the tax policy for were wars in afghanistan and iraq. in the past 15 years we haven't been doing this. what chris is doing now is he's acting like a democratic hawk. he want it is debate about whether we'll authorize this and the gop is running away from it. all of the gop candidates say we are at war, at war, at war. act like it. have a debate on the floor of the congress and declare war if that's how it is.
we'll appropriate funds from -- >> they don't need a tax to declare war. >> it's not -- >> we're afraid to even authorize military force. >> but he -- >> why do we have to be -- >> it's more kuhn than the actual tax. michelle's point stands that taxes tend to not go away when they are, quote, temporary. he's trying to start the conversation. congress, take it up, have the discussion. if you want to defeat them, call it a war, do it that way. we'll do what what has been effective. we have had gains this week which we can't deny happened. we saw an iraqi flag go down. >> we did it without taxing americans more. we are already in debt, spending more than we are taking in. why go deeper in debt? we don't need to. >> they're not doing it to try to start a conversation. they are doing it because they are doing what they want to do which is take more money from us which is what they do best.
i don't understand if taxes were really low and we haven't have enough money to start a war against isis, that's not the case at all. i need more money. no. they go and figure out what the budget is. they cut from somewhere in the budget in order to make room to pay for whatever it is that they need to pay for. the government should be no different. >> john, the number one thing on americans' mind is safety, security, national security. we spend $4 trillion a year. do we need to tax americans more to fight isis? >> eric, the money doesn't matter. what needs to happen is the attitude towards spending the money. i think another 1% tax on everyone, listen, that's 1% of your income that can't be invested, can't be saved. that would put the necessary pressure on our elected
officials to take the war seriously. yes, cut government spending. we talk about it all the time. >> the money does matter, my friend. >> they take money now and -- >> wait. let me make the point. we have spent money for 10, 15 years. we'll spend it for another 10, 15 years unless we declare war. it could be done in six months if done properly and cost a fraction. >> all true. it could be done without the surtax, right, jessica? we don't need that part of it. >> i'm not sure. i don't know the figures of it to speak to that. the point i can speak to is that i believe this is a push for the government to be more transparent with the american people about what we are doing, what it is costing and what it will cost going forward to defeat isis. chris kuhn is not a big taxing liberal. i want to remind you of that. >> do you think because they have more money they will be more transparent? >> guys, hold on. there are so many places we could find this stupid $11
million measly dollars we spend per day. $6 billion we lose -- $5.6 billion we lose in unemployment insurance improper payments. $3 billion. disability, $5 billion annually. $13 billion. oops, we accidentally paid money out. >> it's not all binary that if we do this we do that. >> why not? >> because that's a different conversation. >> that liberal comment is the reason we are in debt, on our way to $19 trillion and higher. >> okay. >> your comment. yes, it is either/or. there is a finite sum of money. we take in $3.6, $3.7 trillion a year. we should spend that, not $4 trillion. >> i understand and i believe we can cut spending. i don't want to pay social security to dead people which we are doing. that's a problem. it doesn't mean we can't have
this discussion and chris kuhn isn't getting it started. we haven't talked about authorizing this. >> you want to do something else, tax you more. we spend the money. >> take it seriously though. people don't take it seriously unless they see the ramifications, hear about tragedies on the news. when it hurts them, their families or the pocketbook they take it seriously. this is about fighting and winning, not whether to take money from this possession and put it to that. that's what that th would do. jessica's point. bring it to the forefront. let the congress, the president conduct and deeclair war and be done with it. >> give michelle the final thought on this. go ahead. >> the problem is not that we don't have enough money. the problem is we don't have a strategy. doesn't matter if we have billions to spend. if we don't have an administration that's taking it seriously, we don't need more money. >> we'll leave it on that. i agree with michelle. coming up, michael moore saying the republican party is a dead party. but is this lefty dead wrong?
coming up michael moore say it is republican party is a dead party saying they alienate women, people of color and young americans. he's also bashed republicans over income and equality. is he wrong calling the party a dead party? >> yes. the republican party is so dead. that's why they control the house of representatives, u.s. senate and since president obama has been elected over 900 republicans have gained legislative seats f. you look at state legislatures, 70% of them are controlled by republicans. 60% of november gors are republicans. i don't think the republican party is dead. if anything is dead it's michael moore's career. i haven't seen him in forever. >> i'm trying to figure out what he's talking about. on the democrat side you have three older white people you have two women, hispanics, african-american, two doctors, two people who may be ministers
and a younger average age than the democrats. who is the party of the big tent here? >> i'm supposed to say you guys are. i think the republicans are so divided that they have this many candidates. what moore said at the end of the statement which is the only good part about it is that if you do the math it looks like a democratic victory. millennials over 20 points. 51 to 30, i believe it is favor the democrats f. you look at hispanics, over 30 points. women as well. educated women even more than that. black voters, still 80% plus favor the democrats. >> is the republican party dead? >> i disagree saying if there is an african-american as a candidate that appeals to african-americans who aren't candidates. i believe the gop is dead
ideologically. donald trump has been on every side of every issue. especially if you they get rid of obamacare but don't touch medicaid. >> so the traditional gop is broken. >> i don't think so. i like your point that there is diversity in the republican party. you have senator rand paul who is libertarian. we have diversity in color and ideas. instead you have three old white people -- >> i think that's it. you're counting races, genders. it's about ideas. ideology.
he's counting women, african-americans. we are the ones who are about diversity. >> it should be about ideas, individual wallism about the republicans. >> of course spt not we have a black guy or whatever. shouldn't we appeal to african-americans? >> that's how democrats frame the debate. >> let's talk about it. it sounds like a vibrant party to me. >> that was the part of moore's statement i didn't like. you should never declare a victory before you have won it. 2014 was a thumping for the
party. we did well in 2012 getting obama re-elected. it should be about ideas so we need more from the gop about the ideas they are promoting. to have people standing up on stage saying no amnesty. we'll round up hispanics and send them back, build a wall. you have people saying they don't want to raise the minimum wage except for rick santorum who doesn't look like he's going anywhere and is still in the d kiddy debate. >> hold on one second. jessica. what has president obama done for african-americans. income inequality has skyrocketed over president obama and unemployment among african-americans is still elevated. >> still high but lower at 9.6%. it was at 10.5. >> what has he done? >> he's added 13.3 million jobs. 17 million people for african-americans. he has his father hood
initiative. he's done the enterprise zones. >> and what? >> and what, michelle? if you can show me a million million. >> 56 million women out of the workplace. >> and two-thirds of minimum wage earners are women. donald trump said wages in the country are too high. >> go ahead, john. >> listen, the president's approval rating is way down. that's why in my opinion is gop should be running away with this. even look at the front runner. you look at donald trump as the new brand of republican. as i understand it he's for continuing a socialle safety net. meet the new boss, same as the old boss. this party, this country needs radical individualndividualism, capitalism, not more of the same thing. >> jess? >> i agree with jonathan's point that there is a strong argument the gop should be doing better than they are. i return -- >> much better than they are? >> what do you mean? >> we give you the governor ships --
>> we have more -- [ all speaking at once ] >> the gop has the support of white people. that's who is backing that party if you look at the numbers. >> i have a hispanic right here who is republican, but, yeah, just white people. >> what a tangled web we weave. the washington post revealing the biggest pinocchios of 2015. and one of the biggies being spread by key lawmakers. see yo
>> hands up, don't shoot. the washington post naming it as one of the biggest pinocchios of 2015. of course that was the rallying cry sparking violent protest in ferguson claiming a come shot michael brown when he was surrendering. problem is it was proved to be a lie. some in the media fuelling flames based on the lie and lots of lawmakers also buying into it. jonathan, it's costing businesses. >> it's a complete lie. it costs businesses. how many police officers had bricks thrown at them, bottled thrown at them. this is a major expense for the country. it's a lie that was built on a lie. this notion that america is a racist, unjust society. >> we talked here quite a bit during the whole period about body cameras would help stop this so it wouldn't be a lie. >> it would be great if we had
body cameras. it would be great if we didn't demonize a group. this is a mistake. it's not as if we don't know murders took place. we do know eric garner said "i can't breathe" or maybe he didn't. it didn't change the fact that he's now dead at the hands of a police officer. we don't want to belittle this because it was a pinocchio. this is what we were told. i don't blame the lawmakers. i don't blame the media for making a point of it. >> hold on. i'm going to throw it to michelle. guys, control room. can you put up the picture of the cnn hosts putting their hands up? listen, if you are going to do something like this eat it when you're wrong. right, michelle? >> fine. yeah. jessica was acting like it is no big deal. they fanned the flames. these people went out on the streets and blocked traffic. these people damaged 500 buildings and businesses. they estimate that $4.6 million
in damage was done to businesses in buildings in the ferguson area. this is not just, oh, no big deal. tons of business owners suffered because of this. >> john, there was a huge backlash, anti-come backlash that exists today based on that lie. >> yeah. it was a lie. it fed into lie which means it's created this country and fanned by the media and the lawmakers who exacerbate it and legitimize it. when you have members of congress and the media basically mimicking a lie and has a big impact on the culture we saw on the streets of a lot of american cities. >> we'll leave it there. hey, want more wake up america? boy, i have a surprise for you. stick around.
i want to say thanks to the "cashin' in" crew for joining us. head over to foxnews.com to see jonathan's stock picks. happy new year to everyone. jonathan, jessica and michelle. 2015 was a stellar year for # wakeupamerica. twitter named us the tops on the political platform for the year. i want us to continue that message personally. i'm extremely excited to announce a book i'm writing, a road map on how to wake up the country. together we can and will put america back on track to
greatness. go to eric bolling.com for more details. have a great first weekend of 2016, everybody. be safe and god bless. us. let not your heart be troubled. have a good weekend. see you back here monday. >> winning the presidency, what does that take? a strong debate. >> i'm paying for this microphone. >> this is all theatre. it's theatre and politics. it's trying to get people to come in to the theatre and take a look, see if they like your play. >> yes, we can. >> you have to learn to see campaigns through the lens of the camera. >> campaigns are made of moments that everyone remembers. >> the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull, lipstick. >> there you go again. >> where's the beef? >> senator, you're no kennedy. >> commerce, education, and the -- what's the third one there? oops. >> tonight we take you behind the scenes. >> see if they can do this flash. >> we'll show