tv Risk and Reward With Deidre Bolton FOX Business September 9, 2016 5:00pm-6:01pm EDT
melissa: when i first saw it, i thought coca-cola had done it. it's a local store. they built with maybe what they had here. david: inexcusable is all i can say. melissa: "risk and reward" starts now. liz: a triple-digit sell-off on the dow today. this fist "risk and reward." i'm elizabeth mcdonald in for deirdre bolton. major stock averages taking a beating in the most volatile day since the british vote to leave
the e.u. we have adam shapiro from the floor of the new york stock exchange. reporter: it was an ugly day. if you look the speed with which this happened. we were down tripping digits on the dow for most of the day it was just after 2:00 we picked up the momentum. they are blaming the federal reserve bank president out of boston. he's a dove. he never talks about interest rate increases. the meeting coming up in two weeks. let me give you the quote that had everyone on edge. if we want to insure we remain at full employment a gradual tightening is likely to be appropriate. he said a reasonable case can be made for tightening interest rates. that was the first thing that upset investors.
we saw them pull out of stocks, treasuries and commodities. toil closed down today. the chances of a federal reserve interest rate increase, if you look at what happened between thursday and today, the federal funds rate are look at a 24% chance. thursday yesterday that chance is only 18%. the chance of a december rate hike is 56% it was that quote from the fed chairman out of boston that's'' sparked this. we have seen the drop in stocks. this is the biggest single day drop in stocks since june 27. the videos that you played at the beginning of the program with people screaming and running out of the theaters. this wasn't a huge traumatic
kinds of event. but the volume was very heavy. the volume topped 4 billion chairs. and two key metrics we were watching. the first was the s & p 500. then in the last 10 minutes it broke through 2132. it ended the day at 2127. but another federal reserve president is going to speak, and the traders say this is thback and forth driving them nuts. the sell-off continues. they do not like the uncertainty they are getting from the fed. they are look for leadership from people who seem to be rudderless. >> we have two formerly doveish federal research officials apparently saying yes to interest rate hikes.
we are awaiting hillary clinton about to speak on national security. she is here in new york city. we'll bring it to you live when hillary clinton does come out to speak. we want to talk more about how to protect your wallet. it was a nasty day in the markets. jonas, this felt like the beginning of the year when the fed did raise interest rates and we had that 14-point sell-off in the beginning of the year. is it feeling like that all over again, we could have the late summer swoon, early fall swoon? >> all the hot air where all the money has been going. that pushed the value of assets up. though there is no fundamental reason besides interest rates.
a lot of money went into utilities and telecom. that's where the real hits are in the low volatility play that got popular with retail investors. it's looking riskier than the nasdaq or bio tech. what you want to avoid is the yield reach. not so much like the long-term investment u.s. bonds. but junk bonds, high-yield stocks. liz: the investors are look at their 401 ks saying that was a mass ski white-knuckle ride. what thud they expect monday? >> more volatility before the election. we have the election question
in play and what's happening around the world. all the different economies around the world are not doing so hot. north korea freaking people out. expect a lot more volatility. you brought up a good point about people's 401ks. resist the temptation to look at them every day. you need to be in a 6-year long term plan. hold the course. don't be putting new money to work, don't be pulling back at this point unless you are not sleeping at night. but stick to your long-term plan. if you don't have a long-term plan, now is the time to get one. focus on what you can control, like how much you spend every day. liz: we just showed the action in gold. as the dollar strengthens, gold goes down.
what's happening here? >> rate were very low and the play has always been they are making rates too low and it's causing inflation. the central banks are going to be raising rates. that makes gold less attractive. liz: do you think the market is in a bubble, jonah? >> i think they are overpriced. liz:e are not in a bubble? >> not for the whole market. >> i agree. certain aspects of the market but overall, not yet. liz: next insults. president obama overseas called americans lazy not once but
twice. >> in the united states sometimes you can feel lazy and think we are so big we don't have to really know anything about other people. if you see the environment destroyed, it's not because that's necessary for development. it's usually because we are being lazy and not being as creative as we could be. elizabeth: he's speaking in a region that's largely communist. at the end of that trip he had north korea detonating a bomb. and hillary clinton is calling some americans racist. >> if i were to be grossly generalists. there are trump supporters that i call the deplorables. the racists and haters and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to read store an america that no longer exists.
liz: the latest cnn poll has trump in the lead. that could equate to 113 million american voters. to our political power panel if that means a third of americans are deplorable and racist. we have to break. we have hillary clinton. >> i just finished meeting with a distinguished group of national security experts. some served under a republican president some under a democrat and some in uniform. they don't agree on everything. but together they represent a
great deal of expertise, experiences, and lessons learned. i asked them to join me for a candid conversation about some of the most challenging issues facing our country because i believe america's national security must be the top priority for our next president. to do that job, you need to constantly seek new information and new perspective,fest your assumptions, ask and answer hard questions. that's what today was about. i'm grateful to these men and women for sharing these insights with me. i hope and intend that our conversations will continue because as i have said many times i believe in a by part a foreign policy. we won't always see eye to eye. but when it comes to questions of war, peace and the safety of our country, we can't let party affiliation stand between us. we need to put partisanship
aside and work together for the good of all of us. and i know we can do it. i have seen it happen under both republican and democratic presidents. so that will be my goal if i'm elected this fall. today our main conversation was as you might expect, isis and other terrorist threats. we discussed how isis is finding ways to convince young men around the world and some young women, including in our own country to get assault weapons or strap on bombs and kill large numbers of people. and we talked specifically about a strategy to protect us from that threat here at home. we went into detail on what it will take to sun our intelligence to help us detect and prevent attacks before they happen. we also discussed methods to disrupt online recruitment so they to reaching and
radicalizing young people on the internet. one of the points that's of the participants emphasized which deserves a higher priority and a counter-terrorism strategy is the role of local governments and community leaders here at home who truly do act as our first line of defense. while we protect the homeland, we need to take the fight to isis. that means smashing their strongholds, denying them safe havens, dismantling the global network of arms and finance that supply these terrorists which requires working closely with our allies. it does not mean sending contingents of american combat troops to take and hold territory. that's neither wise no in the interest of the united states and it's exactly what isis wants. instead we have to hit them from the air and intensify support
for local arab and kurdish partners on the ground. i support deploy be more special forces and trainers as needed. intelligence georgia gathering and reconnaissance. i also believe it should be a top priority to take the leader of isis, abu al al-baghdadi off the battlefield like we did with usama bin laden. it will help focus our efforts and make it clear no one attacks the united states or inspires attacks without being brought to justice. today we talked about what we need to do. i would stand up a team to bring focus and effort to this. we'll devote the intelligence asset combined with the capabilities of our allies and partners on the ground and the precise application of military force. we know how to do this, we have
models to draw from. it will be a paramount priority for me as president, and it will send exactly the right message. history tells us that we need an aproper that's comprehensive and deal with the overlapping conflicts in the regional and along the entire arc of instability from north africa to the middle east, and to central asia and beyond. as we have been reminded in the last 24 hours with reports of another nuclear test in north korea. we face threats from many parts of the world. isis and north korea's quest for a nuclear weapon are not entirely unconnected. the greatest threat of you'll would be terrorists getting their hands on loose nuclear material. so it's vital we bring the world together to stop north korea's dangerous game. in discussions of national
security it can be easy to get mired in the tactics and lose focus of the threat. american leadership is about creating more peace in our world be more prosperity, more human dignity. that what's we also have to be focused on every day. there were a number of very excellent suggestions about what we can and should be doing here at home to try to bring our american muslim community much more closely and welcomed into the struggle against radicalization and recruitment. and i'm anxious to follow up on the ideas and model programs that are currently under way. i'm humbled to be supported in this race by a growing number of retired military leaders. earlier is week, 95 retired generals and admiralled endorsed me for president.
in the past 48 hours, another 15 have joined them. so have people on both side of the debate that defined our foreign policy for the past 30 years. their support is an honor. i'm grateful for it, by the many also a signal that this election is different. i don't want to rehash everything my opponent has said in this campaign. but no conversation about our national security would be complete unless we across knowledge that the nominee on the other side promises to do things that will make us less safe. national security experts on both sides of the aisle are chilled by what they are hearing from the republican nominee. that may be the number one reason why this election is the most important in our lifetimes. so i'm not waiting until november. i'm bringing democrats and republicans together now because
i plan to get right down to work on day one. the stakes are too high and the issues too serious for anything less than that level of preparedness. americans should be able to count on their president and commander-in-chief to provide rational, confident, and even keeled leadership, especially in tumultuous times like these. i'm grateful to the men and women i met with today. experts with a broad range of understanding and willingness to share their insights. and i look forward to continuing to receive their advice in the days and weeks ahead. we'll take just one or two questions. >> [inaudible] same strategy as the obama administration to
grath gradually escalate sanctions has clearly failed. how does it differ from the one you and president obama had while you were in office four years. >> it's clear increasing threat posed by north korea requires not only a rethinking of the strategy but an urgent effort to convince the neighbors, most particularly china, that this is not just a u.s. issue. and i think we have an opening here that we haven't had for the last several years that i intend to do everything i can to take advantage of. but we are also going to support and equip our allies in the region with the missile defense systems they require to protect themselves. that's not something north core
rans other chinese or russians in the region are particularly pleased about, but what is the alternative? we are not going to let anyone who is a treaty ally or partner of ours be threatened and we won't let north korea pursue a nuclear what he won the what lace particular capacity to deliver it to the united states territory. that's the absolute bottom line. if other countries wants to to assist us in that effort we welcome that and we'll engage in intensive discussions as soon as possible. >> you put out a statement earlier today saying that you support president obama's call for additional sanctions on north korea. but they faced sanctions for years and clearly it hasn't stopped them from moving forward on their nuclear program. so how will more sanctions help? and would you consider the kinds
of sanctions you pushed for with iran. >> the answer to the question question is yes. we faced a similar problem in 2009. as a senator i voted for every sanction that was put before the senate against iran. in our effort to try to prevent iran from moving forward on a nuclear program. it didn't stop them. they built covert facilities. they mastered the nuclear fuel cycle. they were able to acquire and put into operation a significant number of centrifuges. so our sanctions despite our best efforts, were not enough. although we have international sanctions against north korea, some of which i helped to negotiate when i was there, they aren't enough either, and they aren't enough for the same religion was responding to amy
about because china has not yet made the decision it needs to make. that north korea poses a threat to the region and poses a threat to the kinds of stable border relationship that china has always valued with north korea. so we'll continue to look at how we tighten sanctions. i think there is a role for sanctions. the regime lives off goods and materials that can be smuggled in to keep their lifestyle and love of luxury going. so i think there is a lot more we can do, and it will be on the top of my list in dealing with china on how we'll prevent what could be a serious conflict with north korea. >> jennifer, you don't talk
about leverage until you produce leverage. i believe that we do have leverage with china. and i believe based on my extensive discussions when i was secretary of state, that there is even a conversation starting with china about how to changes in the for korean regime. china has no interest in seeing the kind of buildup which we are going to be doing. and i will stress this and under line it. we'll not leave tour friends and allies unprotected. and we'll do everything we can to put in the most effective missile defense system. the chinese are not happy about that. we have a lot of leverage. we are going to exercise that leverage and put together the kinds of negotiations that i
think can lead to a beginning of containing and controlling the behavior of the north korean government which has the danger of affecting everyone including china. thank you all have much. >> do you have a response to donald trump appearing on russian television? >> every day that goes by, it just becomes more and more of a reef at television show. it's not a serious presidential campaign. and it is beyond one's imagination to have a candidate for president praising a russian autocrat like vladimir putin. and throwing his lot in with him in the way that he has approved
of his wish list and not even really understanding what putin has already done like invading and occupying crimea. we are living in challenging times. and that's certainly was reinforced by the excellent discussion we had today. no one who wants to assume the responsibility of being president and commander-in-chief should be making the kind of reckless and dangerous statements and identifying with a regime that has some aggressive tendencies toward our interests, our values, our friends and allies. so can i say was surprised? i'm not sure anything surprises us anymore. but i was certainly disappointed that someone running for president of the united states would continue this unseemly
identification with and praise of the russian president, including on russian television. thank you all. elizabeth: hillary clinton speak on national security. starting out her speech pretty subdued. seemingly quite. then becoming more forceful when giving a parting shot to donald trump and his overtiewrs and statements about russian president vladimir putin. we have the panel still with us. tammy, it looks like three things hillary clinton was trying to accomplish. show case foreign policy details. show she has more military officials, 110 versus donald trump's 88 and showcasing that donald trump will make us less safe. >> part of the argument people made is she seems too scripted. you might not agree with what she was saying, but this was a
more centered approach, more comfortable and natural in her delivery. the argument against her praising the fact that more people have endorsed her in the it end is these would be the people responsible for the conditions we are facing now. so she is in a very difficult position of having to argue hire me so i will change the environment, but she has been in our lives for decades and is arguably part and parcel to the nature of what we are experiencing. >> she has to embrace it but say i'm different and i'll mike a difference. liz: the remarks came after hillary clinton met with prominent republican security officials like michael chertoff. also matt olson, the head of the national terrorism center.
he's on record saying isis is rooting for trump. what do you make of that? >> i think that's a pretty interesting comment. whether that's true or not, i think that's speculation on his part. but the point about her style and delivery. i was listening for her substance. she talked about putting partisanship aside and i find the hard to believe when we think about some of the things she said about people who may agree with trump and disagree with the progressive point of view. liz: eric, you are a democratic strategist. >> i'm an independent. liz: to tammy's point, the rights of isis came after the u.s. backed out of iraq. and it set the stage for al qaeda remnants to pour in. now hillary clinton is saying we
want to go after the head of isis al-baghdadi. do you think people will believe this? >> i think you have someone who is known to be a hawk, certainly within the military that's been her reputation. i don't think they would doubt she would hunt down isis. i agree with tammy. on the style standpoint she did loosen it up and that's an important piece that will help her later on. but this is someone trying to present an image that she is bringing people together, that she is not all it nateing people to try to -- that she's not alienating people. >> her strength is when she is more comfortable and relaxed. what the reporters didn't ask about, there seems to be a shift in some policy where she announced she was open to sending more advisers to deal
with isis when she said a few days ago no boots on the ground. is this a change from today? that's a significant difference she mentioned. elizabeth: anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 troops are in iraq right now. do you think hillary clinton would send more troops in if she is elected president? >> i'm not sure she'll do anything differently than president obama has done. one day she is as war hawk and one day she wants to pull troops out of the middle east. elizabeth: eric, hillary clinton as secretary of state, certainly the obama administration, has been criticized over the russian reset. and in the parting shot, that's when hillary clinton become more energized. she seemed subdued, then became energized when asked about donald trump. she said reckless and dangerous
overtures about a very aggressive russian regime. is hillary clinton the right person to take on donald trump right now? >> is she the right person? i think many people would say we would like to have any kind of person who could do better because of her numbers. but i think she is right on the question of putin. i don't think there is anyone who could disagree with that. he has the favorability of 8% because of the things he does. liz: 82% because he squashed the opposition. >> i'm saying 8% favor built in the united states. polls of americans. in terms of russia, i'm surprised it's that low. why isn't it 100%? liz: thank you very much. we are going to see later in the show, we have a new report. the justice department granting immunity to the computer
official who bleached hillary clinton's private email server. anyone look for answers. you might not get any. the group that sued the government for the emails in the first place. judicial watch's president is with us. >> if that's what they did, they immunized the one person you would most want to prosecute for the destruction of government records. it's frankly stunning. remember here at ally, nothing stops us from doing right by our customers. who's with me? i'm in. i'm in. i'm in. i'm in. ♪ ♪ one, two, - wait, wait. wait - where's tina? doing the hand thing? yep! we are all in for our customers. ally. do it right.
put under a microscope, we are all in for our customers. we can see all the bacteria that still exists. . for a cleaner, fresher, brighter denture every day. always has to be who sat your desk? phone now, with one talk fromerizon... hi, pete. i'm glad you called. (annouer vo) all your phones can work together on one number. you can move calls between phones, so conversations can go where you go. take your time. i'm not going anywhere. (announcer vo) and when you're not available, one talk helps find the right person who is. hi, john. (announcer vo) so wherever work takes you, you can put your customers first. introducing one talk-- another way verizon connects your business better. learn how at onetalk.com.
. >> 13 phones, iphones, whatever they were, and just banging the heck out of them. how about the acid wash of the e-mails? that didn't mean anything. how about the 33,000 missing e-mails that were acid washed? liz: a new report, the justice department granting immunity to the computer official who bleached out hillary clinton's private e-mail server. so anyone looking for answers won't get any. we've got the benghazi select chairman, in disbelief. >> they gave immunity to the trigger man. i mean, that's why those of us who used to do it for a living didn't like to give immunity. that's why you never heard me calling for giving bryan pagliano immunity. you better be right who the trigger person is, better be right who the culprit is if you
give transactional immunity. if that's what they, did they immunized the one person you most want to prosecute for the destruction of government records. it is frankly stunning! >> to the watchdogs who sued the government for hillary's e-mails, judicial watch president tom fitton. what do you make of the fact that the justice department has given, his name is paul cambeta. he oversaw the clinton server. he has immunity. what does this mean? >> i don't understand what type of immunity has. my understanding is the justice department doesn't give immunity from prosecution in the sense that you get out of jail free card because you talked to the government. typically, you tell the government what information you have and the government makes no promises. they will highlight your cooperation in case any prosecution occurs. they won't use what you say against them -- against you necessarily, but they could use it to get other information to
pursue and prosecute you. the fact that this evidently didn't occur shows further the unusual circumstances and frankly the compromised investigation by both the justice department and the fbi. why would they be giving immunity to someone who obstructed the congressional investigation arguably without letting congress in on it, or at least acknowledging when mr. comey first announced he refused to prosecute mrs. clinton, that these issues have been raised but tossed aside by the fbi and the justice department. by the way, the justice department is the one responsible here. the fbi can't give immunity to anybody. only the justice department does it. liz: does this mean that the department of justice can or cannot basically conduct a probe of this outside computer expert who was helping the clintons with the server. and does it mean that congress can't hold hearings and call him in, if, in fact, he does
have immunity? >> well, depends on the type of immunity. it could have been a temporary tractional immunity as mr. gowdy referenced. could be a broader immunity. but typically speaking the immunity is more narrow and ought not to prevent future prosecution. on the one hand, i agree, it's upsetting that this immunity was granted when no one knew about it, and the key figure who destroyed records he knew should have been preserved perhaps in league with clinton's lawyers, but don't let anyone fool you it will prevent prosecution of eeshg the person who did the deletions or the others who seemingly conspired with them. liz: in february, the "new york times," said the gentleman said i don't recall deleting the e-mails. that seems like a bit of a stretch. tom, put together the time line of the controversy, and it did start early in march, the "new york times" reporting the use
of a personal server and congress put out a preservation order for the e-mails and on the ninth, the firm managing the server which this gentlemen worked for was instructed to keep all the e-mails. couple weeks later, hillary's legal team held a conference call with the firm and deleted the e-mails after being told not to. so again, we don't have any proof just yet, tom, right, that the clinton team instructed him to delete the e-mails, do we? >> well, there's some smoke there, and one of the reasons we don't have proof per se is privilege was asserted with an attorney-client privilege which is arguably mrs. clinton's to assert, what did mr. kendall and mrs. clinton's other lawyers been the deletion? when did they know it and why didn't they inform congress? we had open federal court cases we sought early in march as
well, status conference with one judge about benghazi e-mails we thought might be at issue here, and still they went ahead and deleted e-mails and the lawyers knew about that happening and did nothing? it's inconceivable there ought to be not more prosecutions or investigation here. liz: to wrap it up for the viewer, a private server put in the home basement of the clinton home, more than 30,000 e-mails erased. we don't know if they were considered personal, but we don't know if they had involved the clinton foundation, right, tom? is that it? >> we don't know those numbers. the fbi refers us to the campaign website to figure out how many e-mails mrs. clinton had. liz: all right, tom fitton, thank you so much of judicial watch. appreciate it. forget iran getting 1.6 billion bucks in ransom cash. government calling it leverage. try possibly $33 billion in cash and gold. my next guest said as much during a congressional hearing on the hill. he's here to talk about it next, don't go away. when it comes to healthcare,
seconds can mean the difference between life and death. for partners in health, time is life. we have 18,000 people around the world. the microsoft cloud helps our entire staff stay connected and work together in real time to help those that need it. the ability to collaborate changes how we work. what we do together changes how we live. everyone thought i was crazy to open a hotel here. everyone said it's so hard to be a musician, but i can't imagine doing anything else. now that the train makes it easier to get here, the neighborhood is really changing. i'm always hopping on the train, running all over portland. i have to go wherever the work is. trains with innovative siemens technology help keep cities moving, so neighborhoods and businesses can prosper. i can book 3 or 4 gigs on a good weekend. i'm booked solid for weeks. it takes ingenuity to make it in the big city.
. >> in july, u.s. officials estimated that iran repatriated, quote, less than 20 billion from previously frozen overseas assets of 100 to $125 billion. were those funds repatriated in cash and gold? in addition to the 11. billion. that could amount to a total of $33.6 billion. did any of this money go through the formal finance system? if so the administration is not being truthful about the 1.7 billion. if many billions of dollars arrived on pallets this would be an astounding revelation. >> the numbers keep getting bigger, first 400 million, then 1.7 billion now 33 billion. my next guest testified about the money iran is getting, he's foundation for defense of
democracies, mark dubo vits joins me now, 33 billion in cash and gold, that's quite a difference, mark? >> it's a big difference. the administration is not coming clean with how much money was sent to iran in cash and potentially gold. trying to piece together from what they have admitted in trying to establish a number and looked at the fact they admitted $11.9 billion as part of the interim agreement. claimed the iranians repatriated the agreement. the iranians are claiming $33 billion. i'm saying worst-case scenario the administration green lighted the transfer of $33.6 billion. i don't think it will be that high, but talking many billions, not just 1.7. liz: mark, you are really respected and held. >> high regard on capitol hill, and the associated press said in july iran got up to $20 billion.
seems like this was happening all along even though the sanctions are in place, doesn't it violate sanctions if the administration is giving iran money? isn't that against the law? >> well, it doesn't violate sanction that the administration is green lighting the transfer of money to iran, but what it does violate is decades of u.s. practice to transfer this money in cash. we've gone out to the financial sector globally and said, look, you've got to comply with laws against money laundering, terror financing and impose billions of dollars worth of fines if you don't. we're trying to get the formal financial system to use formal channels and green light the transfer of cash to iran and we all know cash is used by drug cartels and terrorists and arms dealers, it's sending the wrong message. liz: we had the press secretary josh earnest saying the 400 million, it's possible it did go to nefarious activities, including terrorism in iran.
basically nefarious activities conducted by iran including terrorist activity certainly hezbollah. we have a state department official pressed by reporters on the iran payouts specifics. let's listen. >> you asked about the specifics of the payments in january, and we're told that it was never, ever, no one would ever tell us. >> well, again, what you got was our standard answer which is true, that we protect the confidentiality of these arrangements. >> no, you don't! >> from the communications piece alone, if you had to all to do over again, you'd do it exactly the same way? or there a mistake made in the overabundance of caution and the dribbling out of details? >> i wouldn't call it a mistake. liz: would you call it a mistake, mark? >> look, the administration is in a very strange position and try to have it both ways, they're saying through the financial embargo in iran, the only choice was to send the
money in cash. well, if that's true and the only choice is to send the money in cash, did they send the 30+ billion in cash? alternatively if there are other ways to send the money and sent all of the other sanctions relief through the formal financial system and not in cash, why did they send the 1.7 billion in cash? the administration can't have it both ways, either they ceded to iranian demands to get value in return, in this case, i believe hostages, in which case it was ransom or the administration engaged and probably the biggest airlift of cash in u.s. history to a state sponsor of terrorism. liz: mark dubowits, testifying for congress with more details about the growing amounts given to iran. thank you for your time. appreciate it. outrage ahead of the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. florida walmart coke display remembering 9/11 turns out not
. liz: outrage on social media after a san antonio company makes an online video advertising a 9/11 mattress sale featuring twin towers. watch. >> right now can you get any size mattress for a twin price. >> twin mattress? >> twin price. all day long. >> whoa! oh! oh! oh my gosh, we'll never forget. liz: all right, i got my political power panel back.
patrice, eric schiffer and tammy bruce. what did you make of the ad? >> obviously in extremely bad taste. what my concern is these are young people not really even grasping the depth of the nature what occurred that day and no one would make a similar commercial about pearl harbor even though that is half a century ago, we understand what that was and for some reason these young people don't what happened that was. they maybe intellectualy know 3,000 people died. you have a new generation, it's been 15 years and they think that's funny. liz: to tammy's point. eric, a little cavalier here. >> look, to me, this is war profiteering, how is this any different? they're benefitting from an act of war to make money to capture people's attention, it's pathetic, despicable, it's just not right. liz: patrice, i want your
reaction to the owner of miracle mattress issuing an apology. it reads in part -- what do you think, patrice? is that enough? >> that's a starting point and, of course, there needs to be more to apologize, this is not the first time this company put out some interesting ad to try to lure people into their company to buy mattresses. for memorial day, they did something good where they sold for every mattress sold, they gave mattress to a child without a bed, something like that. this is a warning to all marketing companies out there, be careful, you can go viral for the wrong reasons. liz: that's true. and tammy, there was another one out of a walmart with a coke display. do we have the image? here it is. tammy, what do you make of that?
>> that also tasteless, but can you see the sense that they want to pay some kind of tribute, obviously, the wrong way to do it. at the same time, it pails to the mattress comparison where there is mocking of the event itself. i think we can take it project by project, event by event, situation by situation, and realize we've got to do better making sure people know this is an atrocity that is comparable to the nature of pearl harbor and what it means to the nation now. for young people that's what we have to do. that's where we're failing. liz: eric, to tammy's point people are making light of 9/11 and was it disrespectful to the families of the 9/11 victims? are people becoming cavalier about it? >> i think they're becoming cavalier, you see an example of this. this is for profit. that's what's more disgusting. i think that we do have an obligation to teach our young
people, millennials, generation why, what happened and what it means? the same thing about communism, the same thing about russia, this is why the putin thing is so crazy because we're sending the wrong messages, especially to young people. we're normalizing these leaders and i don't like this. liz: it's true. go ahead, final point, patrice? >> yeah, i think the media plays a huge role. i belong to the millennial generation, while i was in college and remember that day vividly, some of my colleague were in elementary school. the more we advertise our news coverage, the worse our generation gets. liz: thank you so much. we had a wall street moment of silence in honor of sunday's 15th anniversary of the september 11th terrorist attacks. we will have more after this, don't go away. is it a caregiver determined to take care of her own?
attacks. thank you for joining me tonight, we appreciate it. "making money" with charles payne is next. . charles: the summer doldrums have ended with a bang. what have become the most complacent and boring stretch for the market in a century ends with a resounding thud today. dow jones industrial average gave up 400 points in response to comments from a top federal reserve official boston fed chair eric rosengren stated that the reasonable case could be made for a rate hike because of growing risk of overheating in the economy in financial markets. his concerns and observations include the jobs market reaching or actually exceeding full employment over the next year. he says that the sluggish growth in the first half of the year is