tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business November 10, 2017 12:00pm-1:59pm EST
this is what it is all about. streaming in your head. it is in your cerebral cortex, when i do it, take loony tunes an do it as '80s rock video, that is the sears roebuck you talk about what the catalog of. ex-facebook president, judd stuart: taking neil can view parker, is saying about what his toes's time. you are taking neil can -- company has wrought on the people. of course, his former haunt. child psychologist dr. darby foxx on that. doctor, is it too late now? cavuto's time. neil: hold on a second. what do you think? >> i don't know that it's too late, but it definitely has had steyn want to tape the video a profound impact, and now that with varney. we know the extent of the he is not happy. damage, they're even talking about a clinical diagnosis that [laughter] not happy at all. has to do with problematic wow. stuart: see you later. internet and media yousage. neil: i liked having steyn on as we need to -- usage. a guest. we need to go ahead and dial fon are those days. thank you very much. back what we allow our kids to do and how to use all the internet and media. meantime, we've got house vote neil: i always think, i have two next week on the gop tax plan. we have the senate plan, really teenage boys, it just, it is so big time diverging. but they're already, to mark addictive, and it's how they that thing up in their own camp communicate, and it's so next week. they're still going full fast-paced and coming at you from so many angles and sites
throttle they hope. simultaneously, i think it makes you nuts. marketing have serious concerns >> it does make you nuts because whether timing works out. if you're always turned on, then you know the drill. want it down in the house by your brain is a little bit frazzled, and the brain is thanksgiving, they want it done actually meant to be more like a everywhere, everywhere, by computer, opening one window at christmas. signed sealed and delivered to a time. when you're always popping back take effect next year. and forth between snapchat, is that possible? adam shapiro keeping track of instagram -- neil: right, right. all of this. that's the thing, doctor, that's very astute, because they can be hey, adam. reporter: it is possible, neil. on multiple social media good afternoon to you. here are some hurdles they have to cross with goal of giving tax simultaneously, and i find that amazing. >> yes. neil: but they do it. and that's a lot to pelt the reform for president trump to sign by christmas. brain with, you know? there are differences between >> it is a lot to pelt the brain the house bill and what eventually will be the senate with, and we've seen a ton of huge escalation in things like bill. the house bill of course has four tax brackets highest which adhd. is it really such a is 39.6%. the senate version has seven tax revolutionary change, or is it a frazzled mind trying to go too brackets, highest is 38.5%. many directions? we definitely need to work on lowest, 10%. pulling back the kids' use. this is not too biggs of an they also don't know how to have issue between the house and the relationships, and that's the senate. but then you get into some most dangerous part. neil: yeah. details, the corporate tax rate. you know, i found it amazing the president wants a 20% corporate tax rate immediately. maybe just my experience with my
own sons is that they look at the house gives him that. the senate, no. communicating and a relationship, male or female, as they will delay that a year to establish what you communicate pay deadlines and guidelines online. in other words, it needn't be they need to bring it in budget. that you talk to them or even there is the actual deductions. meet them personally. state and local tax deduction. so that's changed the dynamics. this will be a huge battle but as parents then, how to you between the house and the senate. the house version eliminates the advise we handle that? state and local tax deductions >> as parents i think it's your except the deduction for job -- the internet, technology, property taxes they capped at all of that's here to stay, so that just needs to be a side $10,000. senate, totally gone. track. as parents you still have to this will be issue from senator kind of insist that the kids collins from maine. she told me a month ago, with a learn how to have relationships, total repeal of state and local and that's -- you make them speak to their teachers or their tax deduction. look for her to push on that. coaches. when they pick a girl up for a remember in the senate they can date, you tell them they must go only lose two votes on all of this. as for tax reform, when it to the door and pick her up, go applies to your mortgage, in and meet the parents. as parents, we really can't use deduction in the house they will it as an excuse. still have mortgage interest we need to say, okay, that's deduction on mortgages of value up to $500,000. awesome, do that on your own the senate says no, we'll keep it as is. time, but you still have to have that is deduction on mortgage these fundamentals of values up to one million interaction. because adolescence is about dollars. building relationships. so where does all of this go? that's what it's for. neil: do you worry? yesterday we saw the house vote
>> yes, i do worry. it out of committee. it gets younger and younger. vote it out and send to the neil: you're not kidding. house for full vote. we expect that next week. the senate begins its markup, doctor, you're fascinating. i'd love to get you back. with perhaps a vote on senate i think this is legitimately, floor soon after thanks giving. genuinely scary news. here is what mr. mccarthy, dr. darby fox, a child kevin mccarthy, the senate, psychologist. it is an interesting read. house majority leader said about whether you're a parent or not, it is happening all around you bringing these two pieces of whether you like it or not. legislation together. >> we sat down and we have we'll have more after this. listened to a great deal. er, that is how the property tax i go with anoro. deduction got put in. ♪go your own way that is part of their ideas and this is part of the process copd tries to say, "go this way." going forward and everything i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. offsets one another. we passed it out of committee. ♪go your own way we will go to the floor. the senate will pass their bill. once-daily anoro contains we will go to conference. final bill what we look at. two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve >> neil, here is issues everyone lung function all day and all night. pays attention to. anoro is not for asthma . state and local tax deduction. it contains a type of medicine i spoke with representatives, that increases risk of death republicans in the house are in people with asthma. opposed to total repeal of state the risk is unknown in copd. and local tax deductions. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers they wouldn't commit to voting for sudden symptoms yes or no, tom reid from and should not be used more than
once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, new york, he will push to get glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. some deductions restored. these may worsen with anoro. he asked him if push comes to call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, should have will you vote problems urinating, against this, and he wouldn't vision changes, or eye pain answer. neil: thank you very much. while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. what we've been see something ♪go your own way . . pathetic. . . under the guise of making it very, very simple on a card. the number on the bottomly doesn't look like you're taking that much more net for people. in other words you're not giving them as much as they thought we couldn't live there. they would get. talking about the individual mom: our first concern was the kids. side. anyway, i went on a bit of a tear about this yesterday. this was going to be hard on them. some viewers, some of you, chubb got us a place to stay in the same school district. didn't like what i said. here is what i said. otherwise it could have been a nightmare. this is all about what you net, dad... chubb turned a disaster my friends, it is all about into an adventure for our kids. whether people can look forward mom... and no one missed a day of school. to getting more net paycheck ♪ relief. in other words, whatever their take-home pay is now, they would ideally like having more take-home pay, roughly a year from now. some are going to get that not
all. we're getting growing indications, maybe not as nearly as many as you think. i think when that sinks in to a lot of people, whether you're for or against this, they are going to say this is not tax reform. it is beyond a joke. it is beyond incomprehensible how they are taking what is an easy run to the end zone and turning it into an interception. i can not fathom it, but it is all sort of unraveling right before our eyes. stuart agreed with everything i was saying. it was kind of sad. i had a lot of people piling on me for that. one thing said you gone from never-trumper but never of a sound mind. barb it got worse. you are a such a big crab. lower wage earners not all of us can afford to pay tax preparers, throwing the card on the desk was simply lackluster. oh, really?
p.j. says neil hates trump. will say anything to discredit him. that is all about neil. really? how is my hair? hunt walker on twitter, tax filing simplicity saves time and money the. you were wrong, today. riddle me this. if you are not saving that money, do you care whether it is on a single card or not? whether you have the people fill out the form or not? if it is not a big difference to you, what do you care if it is simple, what do you care if you use accountant or what do you care hating or liking fox business and very mean by the way? tom on twitter, overreaction, overreaction as usual, neil, i guess you guys have to have something to talk about. what do you mean overdramatic!? tom on facebook i had to double-check my dial. i thought my tv was tuned into msnbc! you must have been watching charlie gasparino! >> yeah. some of these people, first of all half is ad homonym.
neil: don't use big words. ♪ neil: all right. we have got the dow down about just nasty. >> you think barb knows what ad 55 points right now. the markets are looking on track for their first down week, at homonym means? or who was the other guy? least at this point, their first neil: all seriousness, this is down week for the dow and the not a big deal. it is not reform. s&p in eight weeks. >> let's be real clear. nasdaq, the first down week in they're attacking with you ad six weeks. a lot of this is of course been homonym attacks and they clearly don't understand how they pay borne of the confusion on tax taxes. they don't understand it. the bottom line is this. cuts, especially out of the house and the senate. if they, if lower wage earners they have very different versions. want a tax cut, they should be we have gotten into that. trish regan will get into that. pounding the table for a payroll it might not be a slam dunk. tax cut. that is where they get screwed the most. they might overcome these they don't understand that they really don't pay that much in differences. federal income tax, the way the they might iron out corporate system works. so giving somebody -- tax cuts. might not be an aggressive neil: there is distinction here. timetable. they want this out of the house income, payroll taxes, we don't by thanksgiving, signed, sealed, dismiss those that pay payroll tax but the fact of the matter delivered by christmas. we'll see. that looks pretty aggressive to is -- >> we're talking about federal income tax. me, trish. trish: we'll ask mr. mnuchin neil: absolutely. continue. >> on the merits this is not tax about it. thanks very much, neil. reform. it is just not. neil: all right. trish: treasury secretary steve mnuchin, everyone, will join me and by, all they are really in exclusive interview from now. doing is throwing a bone to peel that really don't pay that much i will have his first exclusive in income tax, and they're
screwing people that pay a lot reaction to the senate's tax of income tax, to pay for a bill. i'm trish regan. court tax cut. that is what is going on here. welcome to neil: i think what has to be "the intelligence report." clear, i know the constraints they're working on. we have the president tough talk you and i talked about budget on trade and karl rove, the state of the republican party reconciliation, numbers have to jive. >> right. and why they must get tax reform neil: by definition you can't have a big ronald reagan type done this year. tax cut. and fcc chairman ajit pai and you can if you were cutting spending and doing brave things. media deals and how meet yaw they're not doing that. i think it is important to point ownership may change under out when people start looking at president trump. their net, you know, paychecks, first adam shapiro on capitol hill with a closer look at whether they're on a card or you know, form as thick as the magna carta, you have to be realistic. >> right. the lower income people, middle class people, are not going to get that much money out of this, if they get anything at all. if you're middle class in new york state, you probably get screwed, because you lose your state and local tax deduction. if you make money, a wage earner, be real clear, there is populist sort of narrative through some of this. i hate to break it to barb and all these people, my dad was an iron worker and a bartender.
he made money when rich people had money in their pockets. that is the bottom line. rich people go to restaurants. they spend. they save. they invest. they keep the economy going. s just the way it is. if you're going to screw them, by diverting much more of that money to something else, well, it is going to have impact. now what they're doing here, in this, in, the way that trump administration and congress would rational eyes it, yes we'll screw rich people and middle class people but they will make out. they will cut the corporate tax rate and everything will be hunky-dory. maybe that does work. by the way you cut the corporate tax rate, that doesn't necessarily lead immediately to jobs. i think it will down the road. neil: by the way, what if it is delayed? >> you know what companies will do first when they get the corporate tax cut? they will do stock buybacks. yes they use some of it for other reasons, plant and equipment, but there will be stock buybacks.
markets go up clearly. whether that immediately turns into middle class jobs, is a roll of the dice. neil: we'll see. >> but you are not reforming on the person understand side. you are not. neil: you get this all the time, nasty responses from viewers. >> right. neil: you can take it, despite my appearance thin-skinned, i wonder how you deal with that? >> i deal with it through medication, really. neil: really? >> look at my twitter feed, it is very zen-like. neil: it is. thank you very much. a lot of you are wondering surely there were positive emails and texts neil. my staff assures me that is not the case. really? signs the white house is not happy with the senate plan. i thought donald trump did like the senate plan when he spoke to democrats via that conference remember, from asia. maybe it is delay in the corporate tax cut that has to the him riled up or the white house concerned. go to "washington examiner,"
white house correspond dent, gabby. what is the concern here? that is the delay is counterproductive? what is going on here? >> the president does not want the corporate tax cut to be delayed. they want that immediately in there. which sergeant house bill does and senate version of his tax legislation does not do. they would want to slowly phase in a corporate tax cut-rate to the point where it would reach that 20% level in 2019 instead of 2018. treasury secretary steve mnuchin said earlier this week that is not something this administration is in favor of. they want to seed the economic impact of the a corporate tax rate immediately because they think it can generate or stimulate the economy. something that will generate business and do good things, primarily for -- neil: gabby, what if the corporations did something like charlie gasparino was talking about, first buy back stock or that kind of stuff before expanding plant, equipment, hiring folks? what then? >> well, that is certainly a
risk that they are taking with this tax cut by putting it in immediately. i think that it is something that the white house is fully aware of. but it's a risk they're willing to take. you can't get everything, that you want in a tax legislation like this. and one thick that is pretty much consensual across the board is the desire for corporate tax cut-rate. so they think that if there is something in the senate that would be able to get democrats to vote for a piece of tax legislation, it is the gradual phase-in of a corporate tax cut-rate. there is lot of things in the senate version of the bill that the white house is not necessarily happy about, or hasn't really commented on yet. they're not sure where they stand. the senate bill as you mentioned earlier would completely eliminate state and local tax deductions, which is if not the most popular itemized deduction for wealthier americans. that jeopardizes votes of some republican senators, particularly susan come libs up
in maine. -- collins up in maine. it would be a difficult path forward for legislation in the senate. neil: they weren't flipping over the fact that the house left in $10,000 proviso for mortgage interest. that was haggled over. we'll see. gabby, thank you very much. >> thank you. neil: there issue on senate side, not everyone is there to vote or people you think were going to vote might not be there at all, roy moore, adding to senate headache. rand paul, what if he can not be there because of injuries he sustained at home? so much we're asking. so much wondering about, after this.
neil: all right. roy moore saying interesting the timing of these latest allegations that he had relationships with teenagers back some decades ago, but already a number of his colleagues are saying bow out if the allegations are true. lauren simonetti, what happens if indeed he does? reporter: well, alabamaians go to the polls, december 12th, neil in a special election to replace attorney general jeff sessions. the candidates are republican, steve bannon backed roy moore, versus democrat doug jones. but those four serious sexual assault allegations detailed in "the washington post" against moore, they can change what happens next month.
he vehemently denies the allegations against him but alabama's republican senator, richard shelby says this. >> if the revelations are true, i don't believe there would be any place in the u.s. senate. reporter: there is nothing more to stop moore from running. they could move to expel him. they haven't done that since 1862. say he drops out. it is too late by law to replace moore's name by ballot so close to election day. absentee ballots are mailed out. here is option. trump-backed luther strange, could run as write-in candidate. the up shot, this traditionally republican seat is up for grabs. there is chance that democrats get another seat and that makes
chance of passing reform much harder. neil: lauren, thank you very much. steve scalise said telling me yesterday that the senate plan could be in danger it seven. take a listen. how do you feel about that? >> we're working very hard to make sure the tax cut are immediate. i will not criticized the senate. i'm encouraged they are moving a bill forward. i want them to pass a bill, like we passed a bill. when we passed a bill in the house and they fell one show short, it was huge disappointment. this time we need to get it done. neil: where do we stand on this? talk with pennsylvania senator pat toomey, senate measure that is being kicked around right now. >> thanks for having me, neil. neil: talk a little bit about the moore situation. rand paul is different situation. putting the two together, senator, because their appearance may be delayed, if not in moore's case removed. how does that change in that event?
>> well, there is one possibility that would be this is ambitious. there would be possibility that we would have a bill completed before december 12th. if we did then, luther strange is still the senator from alabama until sometime shortly thereafter. that is tough. that is a heavy lift. neil: reminding me on number of available senators that you have at the moment. >> right. you need a majority. neil: talk a little bit about your plan specifically, senate plan versus the house plan. you delay tax cuts for business another year. many in the house are upset over that. you say what? >> a lot of people are makesmuch more to it than there is to it. we have the same architecture for tax reform. we both take the corporate rate from 35% to 20%. we both allow full expensing of cap-ex. neil: fulling begins immediately. >> immediately. that is very important point. neil: absolutely. >> think about this somebody who is deciding whether or not to
make capital expenditures will not only have full expensing, but they will have full expensing, in other words the ability to deduct under our bill against a 35% rate which they know is going down to 20 the next year. there will be tremendous incentive under our approach to spend capital, buy equipment, right, put it to work in 2018 because that's what the tax code will incentivize. having said that, we will have to work out our differences. if we pass the bill in the senate, i'm optimistic we will, that is one of the differences that have to be resolved. in the scheme of things these are relatively small. as i said, 20% rate, full expensing, moving to territorial tax system to compete abroad? tax savings for middle class families. those we share in common. much of the mechanics getting there as well. i'm confident if we get a bill out of the senate and the house can pass a bill we'll be able to agree on a final product. neil: why did you guys go to seven rate brackets? >> so the reason we went to
seven rate brackets, first of all, simplicity is more how you define income, keeping that simple. a standard deduction, a big standard deduction, we almost doubled the standard deduction, just as the house does, similarity, for most people their tax return will be really short. yes, there are a few brackets but the question of what's in and what's out gets taken care of by that big standard deduction. the reason we created additional brackets because we wanted to make sure in doing away with the state and local tax deduction and some of the other itemized deductions, we didn't want people to have a net tax increase. so under our -- neil: in new york and high taxed states like illinois, california, they are, less of an issue in your state but more germane. >> there are outlyers who have very high itemized deductions, keep in mind, people with high itemized deductions get caught by alternative minimum tax, right? we do away with the all around
tiff minimum tax. are there some outlyers? maybe. but here is my point, neil. i can't explain to my constituents in perry county, pennsylvania, why they should pay more in federal taxes in order to subsidize incredibly high tax jurisdictions like new york city and san francisco. i don't think it is right for federal taxpayers to subsidize that. neil: some of your colleagues, usually democrats from these states who come back at you, and say, you know what? we, and our constituents give far more to washington than we get back. you say? it's a moot point at this point. >> that is not a justification for asking people to subsidize state and local taxes. you know, people get additional services. neil: reality in interim, i see your point, they're going to pay more in taxes? >> i think there will be some outlyers who probably will in those very high -- neil: not just outlyers. >> i think you will probably have to have very high, we repeal the alternative minimum tax. neil: right. >> we adjust the income brackets, that are subject to
the various rates. there is a big net savings for individuals across the average family, it will have a savings of 12 to $1400, a family of four that makes $75,000. so, it is going to be very constructive for the vast majority of american families and very pro-growth. and, i'm excited about that. neil: can you see any democrats voting for this in the senate? >> so here's way i look at this. unfortunately 45 democratic senators, 45 of 48 who signed a letter stipulating terms they were willing to work with us. they were completely unreasonable terms. neil: three did not. >> three did not. that is a place to start. no coincidence when the president invited me and a few other republicans interested in this for dinner at white house those three democrats were invited some they were at the table. i hope -- neil: how about republican colleagues, would all vote for this? >> so far, neil, none of my -- neil: susan collins is concerned about some features. >> there are a number of people
that have legitimate concerns and issues and they're asking questions about those of us who are on the committee as they should. not a one of my republican colleagues has said i'm a no. i'm not aware of anyone who even said, i'm a no, if you don't change that. so, so far everybody is taking a very constructive approach. they seem, that everyone wants to get to yes, because they understand, how pro-growth this is, how good this will be for their constituents. for our economy. by the way, i really want to stress, we're probably close to full he will employment right now, right, where we are 4.1%? when we incentivize significant new capital expenditures and equipment purchases and business expansion, this will translate to higher wages very quickly because companies are going to have to bid up wages to higher workers because there are not a huge number of unemployed people. neil: you don't think companies with new rates, advantages, full expensing, they will not get off their duff, they will
immediately start doing this stuff. >> yes. neil: in the past when they got relief they plowed it back into air own companies, which they are free to do. >> business managers will make the same decision they always make, get better return on shareholders money than the shareholder can return passively investing? when we create better incentive to get equipment to work, lower the marginal tax on returns from that investment i think we'll see a lot of investment being made. neil: all right, you came to power in a wave that said government should get right-sized. there is a lot of bloated spending going on. >> right. neil: you wanted to address that. you can't look at this, senator, and say, all right, we should have done more on the spending side or we should have -- you're stymied in the process. i understand what you have to do to make the numbers meet but there didn't seem to be any gung-ho gusto for going after spending, for going after, seemed like a missed opportunity, and an opportunity
that could have gone into tax cuts? >> if you can cure cancer but can't cure heart disease, that is not a reason not to cure cancer, right? if you can't do everything you do what we can. i think we spend way too much money. i think we need to reform big spending programs. this is discrete opportunity to have competitive tax code. neil, our business tax code is one of the worst in the world, certainly does thielized. -- industrialized world. we can make it the best. that will result in a lot of investment in america. neil: if you look what happened in the other states, off, off year election, not necessarily harbinger, look what happened in virginia, look what happened in new jersey, when you look maine, voters to extend medicaid, washington state, minnesota, more government was a theme. more spending was a theme, albeit in a lot of blue states. i understand.
>> right. neil: does that worry you the wind is going against you? >> i think too early to say. right now obviously republicans control both houses of congress and white house. a record number of state legislatures and governorships. you know, new jersey is very blue state. so, elected a democrat. that does not shocking. neil: not a killer though that in state likely taxes will go up, dwarfing whatever tax relief people feel elsewhere, right? >> because of state government policy? tell you one good thing, disallowing state and local deduction, residents of new jersey, we have to carry full cost of any tax increase. maybe we want our government to be a little more frugal. no -- neil: you think this passes by end of the year? >> i hope we get it done by end of the year. i'm confident we'll get it done. we're shooting for end of the year. neil: senator pat toomey. >> thanks, neil. neil: very instrumental player in all of this. a lot more coming on. a lot more how it all balances
neil: it was probably just a matter of time, right? key lawmaker calling for congressional hearings in the wake of the harvey weinstein scandal. colorado republican congressman ken buck with me right now. congressman, the impetus for this is what? to find out what hollywood knew and when? what are you asking here? >> well what i'm asking, first of all is to make sure this tax reform bill includes a package that restrictions or prohibits the ability of companies that protect sexual predators taking business deductions. and i think we need to make sure we know the extent of the problem, the culture that allows that kind of conduct, and i think we need to, disincentivize that conduct and culture. neil: you would have to prove that the company was in on it though, right? >> well, no.
the company often times makes the settlement, makes the settlement payments. that payment can't be legitimatized by the tax code. neil: is it your sense that there is an appetite for this in congress though? because, the reason why i mentioned it, in light of the charges, unproven but still the charges against roy moore in alabama, that you ought to be careful what you wish for, because investigations on a widespread basis have a way of colling back to haunt you? what do you say. >> anybody that commits sexual assault and sexual harrassment needs to be punished. any company, culture or company or institution that allows it, should be exposed. i don't care if it is republican or democrat or in hollywood or in alabama or some other place. i think it is absolutely essential that we come to grips
with the serious problem in this country. we have young woman who are going to hollywood -- neil: good for you in your consistency, i admire that. the reason i mention as well, i wonder what you think of some of your colleagues in the house and senate, more senators, because mr. moore would be a senator if elected, allegations, proven, are serious and should step aside. john mccain said step aside now. what do you think? >> i think that only he knows what happened, and if the allegations are true, and he knows in his heart that they are true, he should step aside. if they are not true, i think he has obligation to make sure that the truth comes out and he isn't prematurely judged in this matter. so i leave it up to the candidate to make that decision. neil: do you wonder about timing, comes out now? >> seems like there sauls in october surprise.
in this case it is a november surprise? neil: what do you think is going on? my company no stranger to this harassment itself, i would be remiss for not mentioning that. what if you if anything, in your role and congress' roll do about it? seems every day we're getting revelation, a new personality what do you think? >> i think daylight is a great disinfectant. i think we need to make sure we allow this issue to come to light. and i think there are many young women who are somewhat naive and they go to hollywood and go to other places and try to achieve stardom and there are many men who are in control of access to important roles and i think they abuse that. and i think we've got to be really, really careful and vigilant to make sure it doesn't
happen. neil: wandering again here, congressman, you can help me with this battle over what happened to roy moore and separately issue of rand paul, he was beaten up and broken ribs, whether he will get back to vote. is this worrying you about complicating and closing the deal on these tax cuts? >> i'm focused on the house. i hope the senate has a bipartisan deal. i don't see any democrats in the house that are willing to join us in this. neil: yeah. >> but i sure hope in the senate it is bipartisan. i would hate to see another health care vote in the senate. neil: all right, sir, thank you very, very much. ken buck of colorado, house judiciary committee member. meantime, disney all of a sudden is mouse house that roared simply because of something bob iger said. not about the past earnings or the past revenues or how full the theme parks are. something about streaming. after this.
>> welcome back to "cavuto: coast to coast." i'm nicole petallides live on floor of the new york stock exchange. after poor financial results, we're not seeing disney lower. in fact you're seeing disney higher by 3% at 105.86. why is that? ceo bob iger has plenty to say about streaming. in fact talking up his commitment to streaming, calling it the company's highest priority this year. we know that they have shrugged off the financial results. you can see up arrows. they're building a service that will compete aggressively against netflix and amazon, both which are lower today. disney has seen subscriber losses from espn and abc as people are moving to cheaper
online streaming. so new coming to disney streaming will include marvel and "star wars." in fact, developing a new "star wars" trilogy developed by ryan johnson. we're seeing disney with an up arrow. neil? neil: thank you very, very. meantime at&t going back and fourth with the justice department over the time warner merger. weighing in on this with stuart is is the head of fcc knife confidence in the professionals there to make appropriate judgment. >> would you like to have a stab, guess how much is cnn worth? >> given our limited time i think i -- neil: all right. to jonathan hoenig, things that the justice department should simply stay out of this. not much we know what might have come from the white house and what just came from ernest lawyers and accountants but we do know is that, up on the block was apparently cnn and directv.
and that without one or both going, this deal couldn't be happening. what do you think? >> well, neil, what the justice department, you're guilty until proven innocent. people don't know what antitrust is, neil. really is, it is anti-trade. it is cronyism. if you hate the swamp, neil, you should hate the justice department, specifically all the antitrust department, even if you dislike cnn neil. this is bureaucrats essentially as economic henchmen, which companies can merge, what they have to sell, what they can't sell. every time it has been tried historically, whether to microsoft year 2,000s or us air and united airlines wanting to merge, government wrecks the process. under trump especially, a businessman, they should get out and stay out. neil: you know, funny too, what you think about it, things they're bemoaning the competitive world change so quickly, netscape and whole world was piling on them and microsoft, whole world was
piling on them, where do you see this going? eventually deal will go through with cnn. the question, what are we left with here? >> i think what is so frustrating, neil, forget about where you stand politically. from an investment perspective, i mean how are you supposed to invest in companies knowing that if they want to martial with another, you always have to government's final seal of approval. neil: that is always the case, right, under republican or democratic administrations? >> neil, you would hope it would be changing. where is it going. i would think it is getting better. unfortunately it is getting worse. we don't know that this is political retribution. keep in mind, candidate trump talked about wanting to prevent the merger in 2016. here we are in 2017, he threat owned broadcast licenses and other concerns and anti-issues. we should have more freedom, not shakedowns from uncle sam.
that is what the justice department is. neil: that would be assuming cnn would be hurt in that event. someone else would buy cnn in that event, not as if it would go away, right? >> cnn, is not the big, time people thought microsoft explorer, neils, was the end all. netflix browser was the -- government has -- neil: only reason why i mentioned it, john, if you think by torpedoing this merger based on cnn being a part of it, and thinking that you damage cnn, reality is, someone else buys it, whether you like cnn or not. it is not going away. it is not dead. >> you damage free individuals, neil. that is behind these evil companies, shareholders, are wanting to get together that want to merge. we discount the potential of new entrants coming up, entire marketplace, neil, the ground is changing under our feet.
who are the regulators in washington, bureaucrats, truly unelected to decide how the media landscape plays out. that is up for consumers and shareholders to decide. what happens to cnn, neil? who knows. very likely it will look different. it could look different. that is for consumers to decide, not bureaucrats in washington. neil: very well-put. jonathan hoenig, thank you. >> thank you. neil: we're getting reasons why dallas cowboys owner jerry jones is threatening a lawsuit, after this. "volatile markets." something we all think about as we head into retirement. it's why brighthouse financial is committed to help protect what you've earned and ensure it lasts. introducing shield annuities, a line of products that allow you to take advantage of growth opportunities. while maintaining a level of protection in down markets.
neil: you know, ge right now, which has been collapsing in this new year although up a little bit today on again, unpredictable reason that the company is looking to lay off people, up to 100 salespeople and women, in the americas, at a time the company going through complete restructuring we're told under new ceo, john flannery. he is not giving details what the plan might involve. layoffs and start of them are key to it. wall street loves that. always bothers me, but that is reality.
always -- [inaudible] meanwhile, jerry jones off the dallas cowboys, reportedly discovered a discretionary bonus plan for roger goodell that wasn't disclosed. he doesn't like that. to genesco sports enterprises ceo, john tatum. john, he is a holdout maybe a couple sympathetic owners that feel for him, but that will not get in the way of goodell not being re-upped. so what do you make of this? where is all of this going? >> well, neil, i think jerry is probably one of the instinctive, intuitive owners in all of sports. so this is, the second time he had a lawsuit with the nfl. the first if you recall, was back in the 90s, he sued the league for the right, clubs to have opportunity to grow the pie, so to speak in terms of marketing dollars back in 1995. so if there is a lawsuit or a pending lawsuit, then clearly
jerry is concerned about maybe one issue or two issues in the contract. i think, you know, all he is saying it his fellow owners and members of the club, is let's tap the brakes, let's have a little more open discussion about this issue or potentially another issue. so i think -- neil: isn't his real issue though, ezekiel elliot getting a six-game suspension, having nothing to do with the cavalier way he says goodell implemented that suspension, but it has nothing to do on bigger matters that might be at stake? >> well, i think jerry's a big picture guy. neil: right. >> so i don't think he will conflate the two issues. he is obviously concerned about the commissioner's ability or authority to, to handout, be the judge, jury, arbiter of all these punishments. and, certainly going forward, that is probably something that
the union is concerned about, and players and in three years, they will be having a collective bargaining negotiation. so, i think a lot of that will come out. but, i don't think, you know, really has any kind of punitive effect, ezekiel deal. i think, jerry, again, neil, jerry has proven over the 2years that he has been in the nfl, that you know, guys, there is a better way to approach sponsorships and revenue creation. neil: he is not happy, the way, for example, goodell handled protests on part of players who opt to sit out the national anthem and all of that. other owners just want to move on from this issue. it takes 2/3 of them to approve or extend goodell's contract. looks like the case now. looks like they could have problems here. it is not all copastetic. what do you think?
>> jerry getting owners, guys, let's tap the brakes, look at issues. have a full league discussion, not necessarily allow, you know, just a five or six owners that are on the committee to make this decision, because it does have long-term impact. and again, you know, neil, i think, we spoke about it when i was in new york. jerry is prescient when it comes to understanding the brand, the customer base, and he knows, you know, right or wrong, he has a very strong instinct for how things should be. whether it was, what team should be in los angeles, jerry was instrumental in driving that. and so i just think, that, obviously there is one issue, maybe a couple issues he feels like we really need to tap the breaks. neil: surprised that goodell made more than $212 million as commissioner all these years. that is a lot of money. >> that is almost what you make.
neil: touche. you're not too -- who says you were flat-footed on this stuff? john tatum. always good seeing you. neil: i thought that was remarkable. john tatum, there is a guy who gets it, very smart and quick when he criticizes me but i like that. meantime a lot of reaction to my argument that simplicity is one thing. but really, paying a lot less in taxes is actually the winning thing. you debate that. because we're going to settle that, after this. to help identify potential opportunities. so, you can do it this way... or get everything you need to help capture investment ideas and make smarter trading decisions with fidelity for just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. fidelity. open an account today.
♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide
and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.
neil: all right, both plans are out right now in the house and in the senate. there are some pretty big differences between them, but the gist is they hope by the end of the year they're going to agree, and they're going to have a bill for the president to sign, and it will become law, and you will be happy. gerri willis has the details ahead of that. >> that's a very tall order. ing i don't know if they're going to make that or not, but let me tell you about some of the differences in these two tax plans starting with the number of brackets. when it comes to the house, they call for four brackets and a bubble bracket of 45.6. the senate sticks with the old-fashioned seven, as you can see right there. the top bracket, the bracket for the country's most wealthy taxpayers, the house says 39.6%, the senate a little different here really at 38.5%. the big thing that people have been talking about all week and our own maria bartiromo broke
earlier this week with, the timing of the corporate tax rate could be delayed under the senate until 2019. the reality is it looks like it's going to take a while for these folks to come together on this, we could be into 2019 anyway. and i think probably the most important change here, difference really, is in the treatment of state and local tax deductions. very important to blue staters. the house says up to 10,000 property taxes can be deducted, the senate says not a bit of it can be deducted. from what i hear from my sources, we're talking about $1.25 trillion over ten years for the federal government. and one other fact i want to relate to you, neil, so when it comes to simplification, you should know that 70% of us already take the standard deduction. we file a short form. so this other 30%, that's who we're talking about, because most of us are already doing something super, super simple.
neil: you know, while i have you, i did want to get your thought on the medical deduction, medical expenses. you've been very public in your fight dealing with breast cancer, and i don't know and i don't necessarily want to get in your finances, but a lot of people tell me that matters to a lot of folks. now, the senate keeps much of that intact, not so the house. how divisive an issue do you think this'll be? >> well, you don't know you need the medical deduction, right, until you have to have it. it may be that a lot of consumers wouldn't fight for it, but it is essential for people who are facing catastrophic illnesses. the saving, 7.5% of your gross earnings, income, that can be deducted from your taxes. that can be the difference between keeping your house and losing your house if you're facing cancer or some other horrible disease. i think it's a tragedy they want to get rid of this, and i feel like what's really happening here is that the weight of the corporate tax cuts is falling on the shoulders of upper-middle,
middle class americans in blue states. this just seems frank unfair to me. that's my opinion. neil: all right. don't wiggle around it here. let me know how you feel next time. [laughter] now to joe borelli, democratic strategist michael star hopkins, shelby holliday. shelby, we'll begin with you on this idea that there are some differences they have to iron out, but the republicans say -- in fact, toomey was telling me -- they're iron-outable by the end of the year. >> some of them are, and when you look at the differences, they're very minor. for example, seven brackets or four, i think at the end of the day you could probably meet in the middle or just pick one or the other. neil: yeah. >> but there are other major differences i'm not sure you could figure out, particularly the state and local deductions. it's something the house is worried about in terms of getting the right votes. the nat is not. -- the senate is not. the nuances here for the senate are all about the byrd rule which requires you to not
increase the deficit over ten years or else you have to have 60 votes. they're not going to get 60 votes -- neil: which is why they delayed the corporate cut. >> right. they have to iron out those as well. neil: what do you think of that? that they're delaying that? >> the problem is we saw market reaction, and a lot of the goodwill that republicans have gotten hasn't come from any legislative accomplishments, it's been based on this economic growth exactly a year now since trump was elected. i think toomey's right though, i think the differences are iron-outable. i think you saw some of the reactions both in the ways and means' 29-page amendment and the senate's version, different from the house's, obviously. and does the public really care whether there's seven brackets or three? they just want to see -- >> they just care what the number is. neil: i agree with you, they want to see, you know, their net pay go up. are they? >> and, you know, for years we've heard republicans talk about deficit neutral, making sure we shrink the deficit. and this bill's going to
potentially put a hole in the deficit, it's going to grow the deficit. and the -- neil: you, as a democrat, are not lecturing anyone on deficits. >> exactly. it's ironic, but it's going to put a hole in the deficit. neil: so you don't buy their math that down the road this generates revenue? >> no. and once you move to 2019 on the business cuts, those have to be paid for too, and for a year republicans have said we're going to get these things done, health care, taxes, all these things, and nothing's going to get done. republicans are going to have to pay for it. neil: i asked whether there was any chance, and i raised this with pat toomey for democrats to get involved. can you see any democrats voting for this in the senate? >> so here's the way i look at this. unfortunately, there were 45 democratic senators, 45 of the 48 who signed a letter stipulating the terms under which they were willing to work with us, and they were completely unreasonable terms. neil: three did not. >> three did not. 9 i think that's a place to start. it's no coincidence that when
the president invited me and if a few other republicans for dinner at the white house, those three democrats were also invited. neil: what do you think? >> they're going to stick with their talking points until the very day when there's a yes and no vote. people like joe donnelly in indiana, mccaskill, manchin, the three we normally talk about -- knead knead heidi -- neil: heidi heitkamp. >> it's very tough for them to vote no -- >> but here's the thing, it's hard or to argue this is tax cuts for the wealthy, because in many cases taxes are going up for the wealthy. neil: bigtime. >> but they can latch on to the fact that this is going to hurt the middle class. you could pick any issue, adoptions, mortgages, they can find reasons to vote against it because this will hurt americans in some ways given the fact that both the house and senate have to -- they both want to cut the corporate tax. they have to make up for that. neil: corporations are getting a big tax break -- >> exactly. neil: and this is coming out of your hide.
is that fair? >> i mean, it is. you saw the interview yesterday with cohn where he said that, you know, corporations and if you're a big ceo, you're going to love this. and through s corps you can use the pass-throughs to get deductions. i just think the optics are bad. and i'm not anti-republican -- neil: wait a minute, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're not republican. [laughter] >> we do need tax reform, we've got to get infrastructure spending up. there are things we have to get done. and so, you know, i think some way, somehow we have to get something done. neil: do you think, though, that just for corporations and -- that is the dramatic cut, the corporate cut. that i see. i don't think on the individual side it's worth the -- >> no. and i think you have -- neil: but do you think, though, that if corporations then take that cut whether it's now or next year or '19, i should say, and they pour it into stock, stock buybacks and all the rest, and don't expand, would that bother you? >> yeah. i guess it would bother me, but
i am one of those people to use the phrase before, i buy the math. and i'm more concerned that kicking the can down the road on some of the corporate tax rates is actually more troublesome than going forward and doing it now at the time this budget is adopted. neil: but if corporations are hurting so much, they're making money hand over fist. their balance sheets are on fire. their stocks are doubling and tripling. >> it's hard arguing -- >> yeah, i think that's kind of the problem. we're seeing the wage gap increase over and over again, and we're not seeing people in the lower and middle class get that money. neil: but democrats just want to constantly screw the rich, right? >> oh, you know -- neil: the theme goes on -- >> we want everyone to pay their fair share. neil: isn't it a problem though that more than half the people in this country after all is said and done won't be paying income taxes? nothing against payroll taxes that are legitimately onerous, but that's weird. that's a disproportionate burden borne by a few. >> other taxes do create or take out a big portion of their income.
if you're making $25,000 -- >> but the tax credits are also increasing. neil: right. >> people will be getting money back. >> which i think will be helpful. but i think some of the math on it is fudgy. >> i think to use paul ryan's new definition of the bill, the analysis show that at every level of the income bracket, the people in the median income levels will be benefiting. neil: what they have to see, and i think in the quest for simplicity they keep showing a card, but in the end that bottom, you know, number there is negligible from what it was before, i don't think the simplicity thing is going to hold water. >> simplicity should take second fiddle to the actual savings that each family -- neil: right. but i don't think it is. >> this could be a tsunami for republicans in 2018 if nothing is done. >> well, two governors' -- neil: so their argue that this isn't pert, toomey acknowledged that, but it's better than doing nothing -- >> which is going to be a hard thing to run with. neil: do you as a democrat think he's right with that?
the democrats hope they just crash and burn? >> no, i don't think we do because we want to keep the economy roaring. poor and middle -- neil: so you think this is the way to do it? >> i think there are steps we can take incrementally. we've always talked about this, repatriating funds, things we can do to make this better. neil: there are a lot of points democrats do like about this, but we're all stuck in our points -- >> i think this is a much different issue for health care whereas if the health care system blows up, people are paying ridiculous health care costs -- neil: well, they're signing up like crazy for the aca. >> i don't see this big reckoning if they don't get anything done on taxes, especially because the market is doing so well, people are are feeling good -- neil: but -- [inaudible] anomalies this week? >> no, they weren't anomalies, but i don't think they're tied directly to a tax bill. i don't think it's all about taxes. people are feeling good right now. the economy's doing well with.
>> two governors' races don't make a wave, but they do show the basis for the -- the bases for the democratic party are able to come out -- neil: they're more jazzed, exactly. and it's who's jazzed more. >> i keep reminding people, lowden county when the republican ran against warner, he won by five points? we won by 20 -- >> and on our side if we don't do anything on tax reform or health care, it takes the wind out of the sails of the base. period. neil: the party's acknowledging each though it's not perfect, even for a lot of people not -- >> a majority of people, it'll benefit them. neil: okay. that's what you hope. >> we'll see. >> to be continued. [laughter] neil: all right. the home builders association opposed the house plan. remember when their big cheese was here talking to us about it? why he did not like what he was seeing concocted. wonder how he feels about the senate plan? because he's back and he's not happy. after this. ♪
see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com. neil: all right, if you're big in the real estate industry, home-building industry just waiting to see how this all factors out, you probably like the senate tax measure a little bit more only because it keeps the mortgage interest deduction
at least up to the million dollar limit we have right now and doesn't cut it in half as the house plan does. home builders association ceo jerry howard to check us on that. how do you feel about the senate plan right now, jerry? >> well, we feel like it's a step in the right direction. keeping the mortgage interest deduction limits at a million dollars will help some in high-cost areas. but most importantly on the housing side of that bill, leaving the ability of governments to issue tax-exempt bonds for affordable rental housing will really help make sure that the rental housing market doesn't go in the tank for affordable, on the affordable side. so we do like the senate bill better. i can't say that we're in love with it because it still puts downward pressure on house prices. our economists estimate that both the senate and the house bill will put such downward pressure that people's house values decline by somewhere between 4-7% depending on where you are geographically. neil: just because they have,
because the tax status isn't lost, it's just not as big, right? >> it's not as big. the real issue is at the high end of the market, the house values will probably decline somewhat, and that puts downward pressure on every price point. sort of like what we talked about earlier in the week, yeah. neil: so play this out then. one of these measures is going to become law, assuming it passes, or it could be a blend. you could argue that as long as interest rates stay low -- and i think most americans, there is a kinship with housing, having a roof over your head that's yours -- you don't think that wins out, just that security that's ingrained in our culture? because there was a time when housing didn't enjoy the tax status and benefits it does now. >> well, actually, the mortgage interest deduction as a deduction available to anyone who wants to itemize has been in the code since its inception. is that's been there a long -- so that's been there a long
time. i guess what we're concerned about, neil, is the fact that affordability for first-time home buyers, the people who really drive the market, is getting more and more and more difficult. and that's why we proposed in addition to the standard deduction being doubled that they create a home ownership tax credit which people could take targeted to the middle class, keep the upward pressure on house prices from the bottom, make it truly a benefit to the middle class sort of like gerri was talking about earlier. the middle class really isn't getting that much. give them a home ownership tax credit. good social policy, good economic policy, and we can do it cost effectively. neil: you know, the other argument you hear from the other side then, jerry, is a rising tide lifts all boats, you know, an improving economy that suddenly picks up pace and grows at a steady, you know, spurt of 3% or more -- and we see the markets benefiting, we see people's personal wealth benefiting -- that that will offset your concerns and you'll
be pleasantly surprised. what do you say? >> they say that, but my concern is that most americans, most baby boomers in particular who are getting ready to retire have invested in their home as their primary cornerstone for their retirement. neil: right. >> now you have these people getting ready to retire, and you're saying that they're going to lose house values by as much as 7%. and by the way, some of the other organizations out there say it could be as much as 10 percent. i don't think that getting a little bit of a break on your tax bill for a short period of time is worth risking the value that you've been building up in your home over the course of your career. neil: what about interest rates? >> obviously low interest rates help and low interest rates could help the marketplace, but why gamble when you don't have to? that's the question we're asking everybody. there's a way to insure against this if people will just stop, recognize the value of housing, that the housing sector is as important as the corporate sector, and let's make sure that
tax reform does its job for both. neil: jerry, are you going to target those congressmen, senators who vote for this? >> we are leaving all of our options on the table, neil. we have to. neil: which means you would. >> we haven't made that decision yet, but all options are on the table. neil: jerry, thank you very much for taking the time. >> have a good weekend. thanks for having me back. neil: remember when robert proctor was talking about a 20% press, that his numbers looked like it? we've got another giant of wall street whose charts are pointing to something just as spooky. after this. ♪ oking for advantages. the smart ones look to fidelity to find them. we give you research and data-visualization tools to help identify potential opportunities. so, you can do it this way... or get everything you need to help capture investment ideas and make smarter trading decisions with fidelity
for just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. fidelity. open an account today. ♪ approaching medicaret today. eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs.
the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you.
these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪
neil: all right, the comedian louis c. has put out a statement. i'm going to be very careful when i read this, because he is acknowledging that the stories and allegations are true and he's remorseful. the stories are true, at the time i said to myself that what i did was okay. i'll gloss over what the exact charge was, because he quotes it in detail. the power id had over these women is that they admired me, and i wielded that power irresponsibly. i wish i'd reacted to their
admiration being a good example as a man and giving them guidance as a comedian including because i admired their work. he ends by saying i've spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything i want. i will now step back and take a long time to listen. good thing, because virtually all of his endeavors are being shelfed by a hollywood community that's running away from him in droves. but the comedian now apologizing, acknowledging that the women's charges were right and he was wrong. all right. on to some other matters including, well, business and something bigger than black friday. to fox business network's jeff flock on alibaba's plans to outdo what we see happening elsewhere. jeff? >> reporter: i gotta be honest with you, neil, i never heard of singles day before today. maybe it's because i've been married three times. but you think -- [laughter] of black friday in the u.s., it actually makes singles day in
china makes it look like a day in church with all the craziness of black friday. this is a huge shopping day in china. started out as a kind of anti-valentine's day, a celebration of people being single in china. it has turned into, like christmas in the u.s., a huge retail behemoth. for perspective, black friday last year in the u.s., $3.34 billion in sales on that day. pretty good. the following cyber monday, $3.39 billion in sales. on singles day in china last year, $17.8 billion in sales. incredible numbers. and just for perspective, you know, a lot of numbers fog you over. amazon prime day last year and the 4 hours of amazon prime day, they sold a billion dollars' worth of good. alibaba last year on singles day, took them five minutes to sell a billion dollars' worth of goods. it's all about the growing chinese middle class. the population numbers here in the u.s., we've got, what, about 320 million people or so?
in china they've got 1.3 billion people, more than a billion people more than we have here. and by the year 2022, it is said that they will have more people in their middle class than we have total in the u.s. and just for perspective on this r i've been get -- are they getting great deals over there on their singles day which actually starts tomorrow or just a little bit later with the time change? on an lcd sharp 60-inch monitor, retails for about $1500, on a regular sales day over there you get $587. on singles day you save about $30. that doesn't sound like a great deal to me, but then again, a lot of people complain about the black friday specials here in the u.s., so -- neil: i don't know. that doesn't seem enough to draw buyers. maybe there it does. thank you, my friend. jeff flock. all right, remember when we had robert proctor here, the noted market bear who's getting some bearish vibes again? well, now we have another one,
another one who's very famous, very well-regarded. stock market cycles, peter -- [inaudible] and he looks at something called the sign of the bear. and, of course, he's practically patented the term. but the guy's a genius, and whether you agree or disagree, whether you're bullish or bearish, you should hear him out. peter, very good to have you. >> neil, it's great to be with you again. it's been such a long time. indulge me for five seconds while i say to you, neil, congratulations on your great success and especially overcoming the obstacles you have. know that you're in our prayers and god bless you. neil: i appreciate that. that's very nice of you, peter. you are concerned, right? i mean, you're concerned about a signal or series of events that are going on that indicate the market could be in for something here. explain. >> this is an incredible pattern, neil. it's something i discovered in the mid 1990s, and it was almost serendipitously.
i was looking over market data, and i saw a pattern. that pattern was, it related only to the advances and declines in the new york stock exchange. i recognized that pattern as being something different. i put it into the computer, and i said tell me when this pattern has happened before. and the computer ran, and it gave me these instances, the top in '61, the top in '66, the top in '68, and it gave no other instances. and i said, oh, my goodness, this is remarble. so then i final -- remarkable. so then i finally got the data going back to the '20s, and there was one signal, neil, between 1926 and 1961, and that occurred in july of 1929. and i threw up my hands and said, oh, my goodness, we really have something here. the sign of a bear doesn't know what alibaba's doing or what amazon's doing or who the new federal reserve chairman is or what's going to happen with -- neil: it's a technical thing. it's a technical thing, right? >> absolutely, neil. neil: so tell us technically
what it's picking up, what you're picking up. >> okay. what i'm picking up is that on october 5th we had this pattern. i'll tell you what it is quickly, but i don't want to get too involved. it's 18 consecutive days where the advance decline ratio on the new york exchange is either below 195 or above .65. so it's kind of a churning range. that churning range turns into, if you get 18 consecutive days and you broke out of that to the downside -- in other words, with a ratio below .65 -- and you have two or three days of follow-through, that's your pattern. and that's the sign of the bear. it's been incredible, neil. the last one we had was in september of 2000, right at the top, within a week of the top of the new york composite index. neil: wow. so in other words, when that rate -- when that happens for a sustained number of days, how soon does the bad stuff happen? >> that's a great question.
and it varies. it's not, it's not a signal that says you better sell it all today, get out of all your stocks today or you're in trouble. in 1929, for instance, it took another 10% to the upside and about five or six weeks. there have been -- that's the longest you've had to wait, by the way, price wise to see move against you. but remember, after moving 10% to the upside in '29, we had a little move of 90% to the downside. so i would call that a well-timed signal. so that's the type of thing we're look at here, neil. one other thing i want to mention, 17-year cycle in the market. if you go back to the inception of the dow jones industrial average in the 1890s and look at these dates -- 1898, important bottom, 1915, right around world war ii, important bottom, 1932, important bottom, 1949, 17 more years, a kind of sideways move to an incredible move to the upside, 1966, the next 17 years, a very important
top in the market which lasted for 16, 17 years. the next one was due in '83, it happened five months early in '82. the next one due in 2000, i would say that's perfect. especially for the nasdaq. and guess where we are now, neil? 2017. neil: well, robert had said, peter, that he sees at least a 20% hit coming to these markets which, of course, for a dow would be close to 5,000 points swiped away. what do you see? what do your charts tell you? >> you know, if i were to tell you, neil, and i know why robert didn't do it either, we would be accused of bear-mongering and telling people things to scare them and, boy, those technicians are out again, telling them -- neil: well, people who know your respective histories and respect the research that goes into it, i don't think -- say some do, but again, smell it out. >> -- spell it out.
>> okay. i'm spelling it out for you. i would say at least as bad a bear market as '07-'09. at the very least. and that was more than 50%. neil: yeah. that cut us in half. so let me ask you this. it's more of a political issue, and i know you don't take sides when you just look at the markets, you're just looking at the direction of the green or lack thereof. when you see the president constantly talking about the records in the market and keeps going up, up, up, there's a flipside to that too. you own it on the way up, you own it on the way down, right? >> i know. if i could tell trump -- [laughter] president trump, i'd bang him on the head and say, president trump, you have to understand that you're going to have to own a downside too. and, of course, he might very well think there isn't going to be any while he's in office. and the sign of the bear says something different. that's why i crawled out of my cave -- [laughter] from dunlap, california. i crawled out, neil, and i said really people should know this. so i'm out of my cave, and i'm telling you that, neil.
and i have great respect for you for putting stuff like this on the air because a lot of the media don't want to hear it now. i've written several articles for barron's, they don't want to hear about things like this. they think that they can prevent bear markets by not writing about them if there's an indication of them. neil: yeah, but barron's has high praise for your sign of the bear, you know, signs and all of that. and a lot of people do. i always think, to your point, peter, it's only right to have both sides, the bullish and the bearish side. you mentioned 1966, i believe then the dow briefly pierced intraday maybe a thousand, it didn't convincingly closed over it until 16, 17 years later. so what's to say that we have a market that doesn't necessarily tank 20, 30, 40, even 50%, but goes sideways for that long? could that happen too? >> i can't rule that out. i don't think that's going to happen, but we can't rule it out. all the sign of the bear tells me -- and by the way, neil, i should in all honesty say there
have been two failed signals of the sign of the bear in 90 years. neil: right. >> they occurred, like, ten months apart in '93-'94, and i cannot explain them. there's nothing to say we can't have another failed signal. i'll be the first to admit that. neil: but would a failed signal to you -- i mean, the argument against this happening i know from a non-technical, more fundamental perspective is that interest rates are very, very low, balance sheets are very, very good, we have a very accommodative sort of global federal reserve, central bank phenomenon supporting this. so you don't buy that. >> i'm glad you brought that up, neil. let's look at latest unemployment report, 4.1%. neil: right. >> look at the 17-year cycle in relation to the 4.1%. you know when the last 4.1% unemployment was? the year 2000. you know what happened there.
go back 17 years, it worked the other way around. the high unemployment rate of around 10.5%. you go back 16, 17 years from there and the cycle has worked very well with the unemployment rate. but one of the things that's scary, neil, is the fact that we are at a 4.1% unemployment rate, and that has not been good for the market. that kind of good news turns out to be bad news -- neil: so tax cuts, whether they come to fruition or not, don't move the needle on this? >> yeah. that's one of the other things i was going to say. the sign of the bear doesn't know anything about tax cuts. it's incredible that this little 18, 21-day pattern that knows nothing about fundamentals at all, all it knows about is how many stocks are up and down for the day on the new york exchange. how does some pattern like that pick ow out these churning -- pick out these turning points? i have no idea, neil. but i know it's worked for 90 years, and so i have great respect for it.
neil: as i do for you, peter eliades, he was seeing stuff, i've got to tell you, long before a lot of people were. we throw that out there, guys, because there's always two sides to every story. we cover the red and the blue, liberal and conservative, we cover the bull and the bear. that's a bearish kind of a deal, but it's out there. we'll have more after this.
neil: you know, now the bitter boomers have reason to be bitter. if peter is right like robert the week before him, two well-known market bears think the charts are aligning for a big old selloff, one that could knock at least 20% of the value off the markets, and maybe even more. so with me, charlie gasparino, steven loeb, charlie brady and lizzie macdonald. [laughter] >> that dude was a bitter, bitter old man. neil: well, what do you think of what he's saying?
>> 350%, that -- 50%, that's pretty intense. neil: he said things would go in waves -- >> i don't think he's wrong. i think there's going to be some kind of a pullback. the last time we had 3-5% pullback was brexit. i mean, i think this tax cuts bill is a shambles, i think it's going to hit tax refund checks, the bow fusses we get when we -- bonuses we get when -- neil: he's saying technicals. >> it's consumer spending. >> multiple record highs in all the major indices, but you'll notice we've hit the record highs recently on not a lot of momentum, not big gains -- neil: he's talking about this advance decline ratio stuff -- >> can i ask a question? when's the last time these technical guys called something? >> granville. >> when was that? >> 1979. neil: well, peter and robert called '87. >> okay. i saw one in '92 -- neil: the old bear stearnss --
>> no, no, he called that the market was going to come back after the first george w. bush -- neil: and it did. >> -- s&l crisis collapse of the market. it did come back. but i don't hear them a lot -- neil: so you don't think these guys are right. >> let me just make this point. markets are based on corporate earnings, and they're based on, you know, macroeconomic issues. neil: but we've had crashes before where the underpinnings were fine, the earnings were fine. >> no, and they've come back. >> like in '87, yeah. >> just because we have a crash doesn't mean a bear market. >> that's the thing, the crash in '87 the market was up for the year. >> yeah. >> and to -- the other thing, this just is history. you cannot find a major correction in the last -- since going back to the '70s, '73, without a huge uptick in oil. i mean, an intense uptick. if oil goes to 100 -- >> how about 2008? >> 2008? neil: what did we do with the
depression? oil wasn't a factor. [inaudible conversations] >> but there is something new. sorry, there is something brand new that's happening now that wasn't in play back then. $14 trillion in central bank money printing from around the world has sloshed in to -- neil: peter ignored that. >> well, you shouldn't ignore it. >> it doesn't show up in charts and cycles, that's why. this has never happened before, to liz's point -- neil: so you're in the camp that it's different this time. >> well, no, we could see a correction, the problem is no one can time it, and being early -- neil: but technicians are married to these types of developments. >> charlie's right. yes, there will be a correction -- neil: do you think we're long in the tooth for this? >> yes. >> yes. neil: you seem annoyed that i even asked that. go ahead. [laughter] >> it could be two years from now. there's nothing to indicate it's now. >> and, neil -- neil: almost nine years, this rally. >> i know, but you had like in 1968 -- i mean, i wasn't around
then. as old as i look, i wasn't playing the game then. but in 1968 through 1972, '73, you had the same kinds of signs that you have today. but it took five years to get -- neil: one of the things i raised is he was mentioning that period of '66-'82 where the dow -- >> right. neil: -- broke a thousand during the intraday and -- [inaudible conversations] >> we had an oil shock. neil: i understand. here's what i'm saying though, if you average it out, the markets were flat. so not crash, just flat. >> here's one thing you have to think of to, you have to think of what will be the macroeconomic event that might cause it. and before the housing crisis blew up, i remember, you know, i worked at the journal, at various places. we used to talk about housing, is it too expensive. but it was like -- we were talking about this for, like, 15 years before it actually happened. now, what is the one thing that might happen now? i think he mentioned one possibility is an unwind by all the central banks in the world at once. >> yes.
and to -- >> somehow jacks up interest rates. >> and to your point, ray dalio has said that it's boom-bust cycles of 17 years he's clocked them and tracked it -- neil: so we're due. we're due. >> so actually it averages out, like, 16, 17 years. we're probably in the seventh inning. >> from 2000 to now is 17 years. neil: that's what peter said. so is he, you know, you guys have kind of summarily dismissed him. >> one thing, i hate to -- he's talking technical stuff. if you look at these so-called fang stocks, i mean, amazon, microsoft -- neil: facebook. >> -- facebook, etc. -- >> netflix. neil: kind of spells it out fast. >> right. whatever it is -- >> china! >> well, china's something -- neil: you really are an idiot, you know that? >> i love it. [laughter] >> china's something, i mean, seriously. i think trump is doing the right thing. i mean -- neil: but he did say, peter said, be careful, mr. president, aligning yourself to a market
when it's going up because you're going to have to own it when it's going down. >> absolutely right. >> don't you love -- >> there is no example of a major bear market without some sort of fundamental event triggering it. and how many -- >> that's what i just said. >> i. >> i agree with you. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> i just said that! neil: so you guys don't see it happening. you don't see it happening. >> i see a pullback with charlie in the first half. neil: charlie? not a bear market? >> no, i think we could see a bear market, definitely, but it would be a buying opportunity -- neil: that's a very clinton-esque response. >> depends on the meaning of there is. >> yes, for sure. neil: when? >> if i told you when, i would lie. neil: gaspo to. >> china! >> yes. neil: there we go. that's all you need to know. all right, we're done. i'm very -- >> we didn't talk about millennials once. neil: no, we didn't, that's another show. [laughter] >> when i talked about '68 and
no matter how the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business