tv Forbes on Fox FOX Business August 21, 2016 3:00am-3:31am EDT
one. >> you're not worried about the competition? united armour? >> they dominate. even michael phelps wears nike these days. >> thank you very much. the cost of freedright now because this is the place for business. this is fox. who knew paying more taxes makes us all better off? >> we come out of the recession, and we're growing. that's good. the growth is going to folks at the top end. big financial institutions, some of the biggest corporations, wealthy individuals. we need to make sure that they are paying their fair share and plow those extra tax dollars into these programs. if we do, the very people that will are going to pay a little bit more, the very institutions that will pay a little bit more are actually going to do a lot better. >> former gop presidential candidate steve forbes says, wait a second, it's just the opposite. raising taxes does not help
anyone. hi, everybody, i'm elizabeth mcdonald in for david asmin. welcome to "forbes on fox." here's our panel. steve, mr. kaine's comment about raising taxes, what do you think? >> he must be auditioning to be a comedy writer. it's laughable. if taxes helped, we would have a booming economy. obama did it. japan is mired in stagnation because they keep raising taxes. it's evident, you raise taxes, the less production -- people like tim kaine or barack obama or hillary clinton can manage people's money better than the people is another laugh line. >> bruce, to steve's point, how come government spending is nowhere to be found in the democrats' argument? we've got empty federal office buildings across the country costing the u.s. government $20 billion a year just to maintain.
where is the government spending part of this? >> here's the deal. if we could direct the taxes and revenue toward rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, then i think the rich would go along with it because their teslas would hit fewer potholes. the roads and so forth are costing us billions of dollars. if people know they're getting a good value for their tax dollar, i don't think they'll mind much. >> john, given what bruce is saying, already irs data show the top 20% pay 84% of the federal tax revenues. top 1% is about half of the federal tax revenues. so what do you make of that? >> wow. ch how can people, serious candidates, make such silly statements? an economy is a collection of individuals. line? me how individuals can be made better off and more prosperous if more of their income on an annual basis is confiscated by the federal government. let's not forget that companies
and jobs result from investment. investment results from disposable income that is not consumed. if you tax away more of the income, there's less investment, less companies, less jobs. >> bill, what do you think of john's comment? >> he's got some good points. it certainly does not astound me that steve forbes is unenthusiastic about tax increases. here's the problem, steve -- people love their entitlement. they don't want to give them up. we can pay for entitlements in cash or run deficits forever and become ever more subservient financially to the frugal and prosperous people of china. you really want that for your future? >> bill, you took on steve. we've got to get carrie in here. here's what the government says. 60% of u.s. households get more in the way of government benefits than they pay into the system in taxes. what do you make of that? >> we need households to be more productive. we need more people in the work force. we need more jobs.
bill, you're a wise guy, you need a time-out in the corner. we need job creation. when we tax businesses, we get fewer jobs created. tim kaine is orwellian. if high taxes meant better outcomes for people, europe would be a paradise. unfortunately europeans, if you're a woman in denmark and move to america, your life will be better off in america. not to mention the fact that nato, our european allies, most of them, those countries don't pay their fair share because they can't afford it because of their high taxes. we're subsidizing them. we're richer and pay for more defense because we have so much income because our taxes are lower. >> right. hillary clinton's answer to the answer, steve, is a host of -- a range of new taxes on the economy. can we afford all of her programs including her tax hikes? >> the programs are going to hurt the economy. but the tax hikes are going to hurt them even more. she even wants to have a soda tax. how about a tax on democrats making silly statement? that would raise a boatlow of
reven auto -- betload of revenue. bill, i've got news for you, every dollar that comes in for social security and medicare is spent now, not put aside for the future. the trust funds are a sham. there's nothing in there but non-marketable ious. >> bruce? >> follow on what steve said, if you look at the other guy running for president, trump, he want to b-- wants to borrow mor. to rebuild the infrastructure, build his wall, build a mosquito net for zika virus, who knows what he wants to do? he's talking about borrowing more. i think if you're going to raise taxes on the rich, that's probably a better answer than borrowing more. i don't know that either candidate are addressing the deficit and the debt. >> john, we've been raising all sorts of different taxes on the upper brackets and still have really flat lining u.s. economic growth. isn't there something going on here with -- with both of these
sides of the equation? >> the something going on is that we do not have a deficit problem. how on earth bill baldwin can say we have a defend problem when the federal government takes in well over $3 trillion a year boggles the find. what we have is a s problem. the spending problem is the real tax on the american people because it involves paul ryan and nancy pelosi. yes, donald trump and hillary clinton allocating the economy's resources rather than jeff bezos, rather than warren buffett or bill gates. you want to reduce the intake precisely because you want lower deficits. >> bill, why is it that that part of the equation is never in the democrats' argument? what john tammany just said? >> he's right about excessive government spending. he's wrong about the duty of deficits. we're the brokest nation on earth. we're $19 trillion under water. i'm willing to meet steve forbes halfway. i'll go for your flat tax as long as you raise the rate just enough to balance the budget. >> carrie -- go ahead, steve.
>> millon friedman was right several years ago when he said it would be better for the economy to have a $1 trillion budget in deficit than a $2 trillion budget that is balanced. again, it's a drain on resources on the economy. >> carrie, it hasn't really been working. the idea of taxing the upper brackets. i mean, the upper brackets are the one that are footing the bill here. again, the top one-fifth pay 84% of the federal tax revenues. that's a lot. >> yes. the most innovative people are the ones we punish the most. we want more innovation. we want to be rewarding innovation instead of taxing and penalizing it. you know what, forget trump, forget clinton. go for gary johnson or evan mcmullen. those people have more -- >> by the way, the rich aren't the only one paying taxes. she has not ruled out categorically having payroll tax increases and taxing the middle class. she says it's a desirable goal ton tax them more. you know what that means in politics. >> john tammany, if you want to
pay for hillary clinton's programs, you do have to tax the middle class, right? >> no, you don't. that's the things. rich countries -- if we were a broke nation, we couldn't borrow so easily. the problem is we've raised too much in revenues, and that makes it attractive for investors to buy our treasuries. if we reduced the government's inflow, we would have reduced deficits. it's a paradoxical truth but nonetheless true. >> a paradoxical truth that is, of course, true. thank you, john, appreciate it, and the gang. you've been terrific. this week, the administration transferring the largest number of gitmo detainees since president obama took office. the white house says it's going to save money. but some gop lawmakers say no,p.
largest number of detainees from guantanamo since president obama took office. the 15 suspected terrorists sent to the united arab emirates. more could be released soon. now the white house keeps saying it will save us money. steve, you say it's going to cost us more and more than just money. >> it's going to cost lives. this is just bloody foolish. we know from past experience that 20% to 40% of prisoners go back to practicing terrorism. we know these remaining prisoners are the hard-core prisoners. the bad, bad ones. to release them, there will be more terrorism, more american killed. this is blood on the president's hands. it is inexcusable. >> we pay a lot in the way of taxes basically for security. how is releasing these detainees going to keep us safe? >> i think it costs us in the court of public opinion, and also our enemies use these people being captive -- these people have been held without charge or trial for more than a
decade. i think it gives our enemies cover to ignore human rights, and i think that costs us in the long run. >> john, i'm going ask about the comment, what bruce said, that it basically is about the court of public opinion. and it costs us, you know, in that regard. i just want to quickly if through who these individuals are and what they were engaged in. they received training at al qaeda training camps. many of them worked with osama bin laden. they are experts in explosives and ieds. so do people get killed in the court of a public opinion? >> they, they don't. that's my concern. i don't want them released if this is about currying favor with the elite internationally. i think that would be a huge mistake. i'm sympathetic to the idea if this is about saving money and if defense officials believed that transferring them to the emirates will keep us safe but we're not footing the bill, i like the idea.
i'll say i'm skeptical. i think this is about currying favor globally, and that concern me. >> bill, what do you think? >> throwing open the jailhouse doors now is not a good idea. it's not just because some of these people may return to the fighting. it's because this sends a signal that we're soft on terror. i think the least we could have done was say to the uae, okay, you can have these people, but you have to give us a $400 million ransom. >> you're referring to the iranian deal. all right. carrie, what do you think? >> to bruce's question on public opinion, the muslim world by far is very opposed to islamic terrorism and is opposed to this very extremist mentality. somehow you think, bruce, by subsidizing this behavior that's going to help us. the rest of the world despises it including the muslim world. muslims are the biggest target of islamic terrorists. i think you're totally wrong, bruce. the fact of the matter is -- >> no, let me -- >> go ahead, bruce. >> let me defend myself here. first of all, okay, they're using these people as -- they
say, hey, you've got them captive, you're holding them without trial. they're used as a terrorist recruitment tool. and the other things is, a lot of the conservatives always saying, you know, why don't the allies step up. the arab emirates, they're taking these folks, taking them. what are they going do with them? trump's people would say they're not our problem, let them if back there. >> let's get to the idea that gitmo is a recruiting tool. weren't there terrorist attacks before gitmo was used as a camp in '93, right? >> yes, '93. something happened on september 11th, 2001. that's a preposterous argument. in terms of public opinion, bill is right. we're seeing assault on terrorism. we're seeing this as not serious and eradicating things like isis. you see it in the bloodshed and turmoil in the middle east. now to refugees in europe and the united states. >> tom, come pack in here. the average annual cost to run gitmo, the white house says, nearly $450 million. when you look at the economic
toll, just from 9/11, an estimated $3.3 trillion. do you think it's worth the money to keep us safe and keep it open? >> when you look at the cost, it's pretty small relative to the rest of the war on terror. in my perfect world, i'd probably be closer to bruce on this. i think that we're trying to do too much around the world. i think we've got troops in too many places trying to fight this. i think that actually makes us less safe. looking at gitmo, if it's $450 million, and if it makes it safer, i'd say keep that and stop a lot of the other stuff. >> carrie, come in. >> these are high-value targets. that's why they've been held and have extensive ties to the most brutal regimes tlout there. the i think the roi spent on this -- perhaps we could cut some budgets in more friendly countries. gitmo, no. >> final point to bill baldwin. isn't it immoral to make our soldiers and other soldiers around the world fight the same enemy twice?
>> it's beyond that. the whole recruitment argument. if we gave them trials, that would become a recruitment tool to videos. we would become part of the al qaeda enrollment process. >> and isis, as well. thank you, gang. that was terrific. the "cashin' in" getting ready to roll. eric? hey. trump changing his campaign team after dropping in the polls. does the businessman also need to drive home that he's the dui -- he's the guy to get our economy booming again? holy sheik, what is iran doing about the cash payments? >> thank you. up first, one federal reserve official telling "fox business" something that could have investors and the clinton
[ clock ticking ] time. you only have so much. that's why we want to make sure you won't have to wait on hold. and you won't have to guess when we'll turn up. because after all we should fit into your life. not the other way around. ♪ everything is cool when you're watching a screen ♪ ♪ everything is awesome, ♪ when you're sharing a meme ♪ ♪ a voice remote, "show me angry kings" ♪
♪ you know what's awesome? everything! ♪ ♪ apps that please, more selfies, ♪ ♪ endless hours of the best tvs ♪ ♪ brand new apps, shows to go, ♪ ♪ awesome internet that's super whoa... ♪ ♪ everything is awesome xfinity. the future of awesome. forget an october surprise. could we see a september surprise? new york's federal reserve president telling "fox business" that an interest rate hike is possible next month in september. we've got lots of big-money managers saying a rate hike could torpedo your 401(k)s. carrie, you say it could torpedo clinton's campaign. explain. >> it could, it could create a domestic me to effect where we're having -- essentially we have a real example of this. 2008 with john mccain, the economy tanked, and then boom, his campaign tanked, as well.
we could have that with clinton because she would be seen as basically four more years of barack obama who got us into this mess. >> bruce, what do you think? >> yeah, barack obama got us into a huge mess. on the day he took office, january 20th, 2009, the dow jones industrial average was 7,949. it's almost 19,000 today. 100% return. i think that if there is a dip in the stock market, i think hillary clinton will survive. >> the market's up because of -- not the $20 trillion in government spending and some could argue it's also the federal reserve, $26 trillion in help estimate around the world after the crash. and keeping rates low. there's no yield to be found except in the market, right, john? >> i don't buy that at all. i don't know why we shower the fed with so much attention. let's not forget the fed interacts with u.s. banking system. the least dynamic source of credit in the u.s. economy which represents 15%, 1-5 percent of
total lending. the idea that the fed changing the interbank borrowing rated through banks would have any impact on the economy defies common sense. that includes the stock market. >> steve, what do you think? >> the bottom line is in terms of the fed, they can torpedo economies as they showed with the dollar, they inadmit antly made the dollar scarce. in terms of the october hurt hillary clinton profoundly because nobody believes the economy is in good shape, despite her rosy words and barack obama's rosy words. so if you have trouble in the stock market, even though the rate hike may be a trigger, the market's fully valued, due for correction, it will underscore to people things are not right. >> yeah. we have about a year and a half, almost two years, bill, of declining s&p profits. and also flat lining u.s. gdp growth trending around 2%. right? >> those aren't very good
numbers. i don't think a rate hike in september would be a surprise. i don't think it would hurt the economy. the federal reserve has been trying to manipulate the price of something. the price of credit. if they stop doing that, that's a good things. good riddance. >> bruce, what do you think? >> i think it's sort of baked in. i think that they've been talking about a rate increase for such a long time. i mean, the savvy money managers out there are probably prepared for this. that's pretty much where i'm at. >> carrie, it's like the federal reserve officials keep talking, misdirecting. you know, it's like you trust half-price sushi at a gas station versus whatever these guys say. go ahead. >> yeah, i mean, we hear a lot of conflicting signals and conflicting things. just like out of the clinton campaign, as well. she says she's for tpp, then she's against it. there are so many conflicting problems that i think could be a domestic me to effect if there's a rate -- domino effect if there's a rate hike. it could trigger great backlashes.
my story is yours. coming up, the stock picks that will go up even if i am a mother... ...i'm a father, a son... ...a daughter. i am in recovery from a mental illness... ...a substance use disorder. with support from family and community, we are victorious. join the voices for recovery: our families, our stories, our recovery! for confidential information on mental and substance use disorders including prevention and treatment referral for you or someone you know, call 1-800-662-4357 brought to you by the
u.s. department of health & human services. we're back with the stocks that the "forbes" gang says won't take a hit even with with a rate hike. >> bed, bath, and beyond. they've got a range of chains that help all sort of lifestyle needs. i not that's well needed now -- i think that's well needed now. >> bill, you like the stock? >> since i own the stock, i can certify it's a total stinker. >> what do you have? >> simpson manufacturing. this firm makes lovely joist anchors and hanger bolt holders. these are labor saving devices for homebuilders. >> john, do you like it? >> i like the idea of labor saving, but i feel that
manufacturing in the u.s. is somewhat of a yesterday concept. >> oh, no. a yesterday concept. you both hated each other's stocks? that's it for "forbes on fox." thank you for watching. keep it the number-one business block continues with eric bolling and "cashin' in." donald trump kicking his campaign up a notch after dropping in the polls. the gop nominee adding new members to his team to try and turn things around. but should the businessman stick to the business plan of turning our economy around? hi, i'm eric bolling, wish to "cashin' in." our crew, a full house. gina loud in, mercedes schlap and rick grennell. my two favorite ladies who lift left, jeannine green and melissa tarlow. jobs and the economy. should trump focus more on the issues to win the general election? >> i think that obviously the economy remains the top issue for american voters. however, i think that for donald trump it's important to come across being the compassionate