tv Bulls Bears FOX Business July 27, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm EDT
inheritance story you'd like to share with us? we'd love to hear it. send me an e-mail or go to our website -- strangeinheritance.com. ululululs and bear starts right now. david: what a way to start the weekend, take a look at this brand new record close for the s&p 500 this is the 13th record this year, and the nasdac also ending in a new high for the ten th time this year, that is a good thing. meanwhile, markets are driven higher by a solid gdp report today the economy surging by 2.1 % in the second quarter though that was stronger than expected the president said moments ago it could have been much higher. listen. president trump: the federal reserve raised the rates too fast and too soon and they shouldn't have done quantitative tightening, which they did. if they didn't do that, we would be at 4.5% instead of 2.1. everybody is so thrilled with
2.1. we could have had it much more except for the federal reserve and we could have been five to 10,000 points higher in the dow. now i don't want to sound too upset about it, because we just broke the all-time record in the history of our country of the dow, but we could have been higher. david: he went on to say we could have been a contender, just like welcome everybody, this is bulls & bears thank you for joining us i'm david asman joining me on the panel today adam lashinsky, jackie deangeles , john as fax ferris and steve moore and the president tweeting out second quarter gdp up 2.1% is not bad considering we have the very heavyweight of the federal reserve anchor wrapped around our neck almost no inflation, usa is set to zoom, but a new survey of economists and real estate experts say a recession is likely to happen next year, just before the election, so could a lower growth rate or worse hurt the president's
economic agenda heading into 2020? gang? >> well look, i mean, yeah, the answer is of course, yeah, trump 's total re-election strategy, david, is based on the booming economy that created record job growth and record low unemployment so yeah, absolutely now, i wanted to comment about what donald trump just said. i mean, look i think there is some truth to that. i do, as you know, i think the fed has been too tight. i do agree that the september rate increases did reduce growth i don't think as much as donald trump does. i say they knocked about half a percent of growth but i don't like him always blaming the fed. i just i think the fed has acted inappropriately, over the last couple of rate increases, but you know, it's not so bad as the trade tensions and things like that that have contributed to a slower number. >> the 2.1% number i would say was pretty good it was above expectations it wasn't the 3% that we saw last quarter but that's okay. i mean, that's a pretty lofty target and a high benchmark to
meet so i think the president is right when he says the economy is strong. where i think that had is fat erring a little bit is when he looks at the fundamentals or he looks at the stock market rather as the overall broad measure of how the economy is doing, it's one thing to look at and the stock market keeps setting new records, but at the same time, the fundamentals are important too here. i think the thing you have to remember is this has been one of the longest, uninterrupted economic expansions that we've seen. at some point, yes no matter how gangbusters everything is, the economy is cyclical, we will go into some sort of a downturn. i don't necessarily think that it'll be next year, i think it could be a little bit farther down the line than that, but i think everything overall is okay , and a lot of people just don't want to admit that. >> so i'd really like to jump in there. first of all what steve said is absolutely right. one of the things i least like about this president is his desire to blame somebody else for everything. it's the sort of thing we discourage in our children and we should discourage in his childish behavior.
now, to what jackie said, what i think is really interesting, david and i've made this point on this program, many times. we have also one of the longest uninterrupted series of growth in the history of the country. that was seven years, and you, david and many others oh, but it was too low. it was only around -- david: it was the lowest since the depression that's a fact. >> this feels like the obama economy right now which as jackie said accurately, was pretty good. >> i disagree with that. >> jonas go ahead. >> i think we had so much more growth in terms of the unemployment numbers, we're down to a record low and one thing that we had that we never had under obama was wage growth. >> i'm just talking about right now 2.1% growth is what we're talking about. >> but we've averaged, i just think that the growth rate has been higher. >> the average growth rate currently was lower than the average since obama so it's not
that great. >> we inherited the economy, it was growing at 1.5% the year that obama left office, so we've got it up to 3.5%, and then we could -- >> it's good it's just not great any more. to the point of the president specifically about from let's talk about on the water front quote because that was interesting, we just heard, could we have been a contender if the fed wasn't more, look, adam, you can't deny he's blaming it like a child but the bottom line is the fed raised rates too far last year that's why the market collapsed and when they stopped raising rates the market stops. david: we'll talk about that in just a moment, but hold on a second. i just want to talk for a second about the fact that we are still , and he said this, the hottest economy in the world right now, and as jackie said, very correctly, i mean, we have gone on. we did, adam you're right. we had that expansion. i thought it was pretty weak but we had it during the obama administration, we continue with
the expansion. the world is slowing down right now but we're still hot, right? >> well this is really interesting, because lower gdp now is giving the fed a little bit more incentive, potentially for that rate cut, when they meet on wednesday, so jerry baker sat down with white house economic advisor larry kudlow and asked him what he'd like to see. >> the fed meets next week, big meeting, widely expected cut rates, really the question maybe is whether it's a quarter point or a half point cut. what would you like to see? >> well i will say the market is expecting three 25 basis point rate cuts between now and year-end. that's the market, okay? my own personal view and the fed is independent, i'm not going to preach, they are going to do what they are going to do and so forth. i would just say the sooner the better. >> if they all cut by three- quarters of a point, all the evidence historically is that it's front loaded get it done as quickly as possible. >> i'd like to see that.
>> so kudlow told our producer off camera he would even like all three of the expected cuts done when the fed meets on wednesday. does that even make sense? 75 basis points in the middle of the year? we still don't know what's going to happen with trade. >> go ahead, gang. steve what do you think? >> i don't know what steve thinks, i think no. >> i'm in favor of 50 basis point decline and i do think there's something to what larry is saying. if you're going to cut the rates cut them. doesn't make sense we'll do a quarter point now, quarter point later, do it now. get the strength of the economy and it's not because look i want to say this loud and clear, i said it every week on your show, david. it's not because the economy is weak. it's because we don't have any inflation in the system and in fact if anything, you look at the five year tips it is 1.6%. show me where there's any inflation that the fed has to be fighting right now. i don't see it anywhere, and they are afraid of growth. that's the problem. they started raising rates. david: go ahead, jonas.
>> i would say though that the federal reserve should keep short-term rates below long term rates, just to stop panic in the market about an inverted yield curve, unless there was sky rocket inflation and i would error on the side of inflation anyway because the federal reserve's ability to stop inflation is higher than ever because they have trillions of dollars in the balance sheet that they could sell and destroy it and that would cause deflation so their power, it's not like the 70s where they lose control of the inflation. to the original point about the election though and this economy that weakens into the next year, it's eventually going to weaken, it's a 10 year boom that ends at some point. it depends who he's running against. at the end of the day, like how if that economy leads to turn over in the white house but even people that don't like this president thinks he's crooked, whatever they still have a certain confidence in his ability over the economy. that was his brand that he developed on television for several decades and if he was up against bernie sanders, i even think in a weak economy even somebody whose a democrat is like i don't know about this guy
and my 401 (k) and i think there's that issue. >> i think that it's interesting. quick point that isn't about monetary policy and isn't about politics either i don't think we've had in this conversation which is the united states is in a post-industrial economy. it is difficult for this economy to go quickly. now, we grew much more quickly than the obama administration than we did in the bush administration for obvious reasons, and we've done well during the trump adminitration compared to the obama administration for some same obvious reasons. now that we've gotten that out of our system, i'm not sure where the 5% growth is that i think president trump was talking about. it's just not going to happen and i don't know -- david: i've got to say hold on one second. one more answer, go ahead. >> productivity. david: jamie dimon just for what it's worth he's a pretty smart guy at jpmorgan he said don't get too pessimistic about things. i know a lot of people are worried about 2.1% when there should be 3 or 4% but consumer
is still strong, business sentiment is still strong, we could have a china deal and you can catch jerry baker's full interview with larry kudlow by the way tonight on wall street journal at large at 9:30 p.m. eastern time, it's only here on fox business. meanwhile you'll get $1,000 just for being born and it doesn't end there. 2020 candidate and senator corey booker, proposing a massive government handout, to tackle wealth and equality as he sees it. details, coming next. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today.
we're changing what's possible every single day., and if you run a business, that means a lot. we create financing options for your customers. to help them get the things they love instantly. our data provides insights into what your shoppers have already bought. so you can offer them what they might consider buying next. our financial and tech solutions are changing what's possible in all sorts of ways. so, how can we change what's possible for you? >> somebody called baby bob and what it is is that every child in america, every child born in our country as a birth right would have a savings account put up for them with $1,000 in it, and then depending on their family's income, every year, they would get up to $2,000, the lowest income kids in our
country would graduate with upwards of $50,000 in wealth in that account. david: why do people with microphones shout into the microphone? i never understood that meanwhile new jersey senator and 2020 presidential candidate as you just saw corey booker is selling a so-called baby bonds bill in an effort to combat what he sees as wealth and equality. booker is saying the proposal would give each american child up to $50,000 by the time they turn 18. he says the program would cost taxpayers $60 billion a year and money could be used to pay for college or housing, but to the costs out weigh the the benefit is? >> okay i'm not going to harp too much on the idiocy of giving like if zuckerberg has a baby we'll give $1,000 to somebody worth tens of billions of dollars. that just seems like a stupid thing. the issue of wealth and equality is real and i'm actually surprised how unimaginable and incorrect democrats are at proposing ideas to solve it.
this is an old idea they are dusting off from previous elections because it really exists just to get votes because it looks like a handout. it doesn't really solve the issue because again you'll be putting money into, you know, white children's thes as well as people who have wets and equality issues, minorities and blacks, so it's only going to close the gap between the two and it's also going to convert to some sort of 529 account as far as my read on it which means it has to go into school and housing the money they can't just spend it at 18 because they would spend it on garbage, like anybody would, not just poor people and the problem with that is there are already so many incentives that boost the cost of housing and school that more government money into those programs would be to solve wealth and equality. this is kind of a hair brain idea. it could be somewhat simpler, you could raise capital gains and lower income tax rates even further but this notion is insane. >> okay so i don't think it's insane at all and a lot like much like the green new deal. i view it as a conversation starter.
now just let me finish. i think that first of all you could means test this thing so that children of rich people get nothing. that's easy enough to do, and the other thing is by the way, john jonas having the money go into funds for education that at least addresses one problem people have a harder time getting a college education or need to go into great debt so rather than pile all over this i would say we should view it as an opportunity to have a conversation about an interesting idea. >> well i have a much better idea that happened to be in the wall street journal today, david and that is to allow people to take their own money, not the money given to them. their own money the 10% of their payroll tax money, put it into an index fund where they actually own stock. this is the best possible way to reduce income and wealth in equality and by the way, even a minimum wage worker over 40 years if they could invest in an index fund would get better than the 1% return you get on social security they end up with anywhere from a half a million
to a million dollars in these accounts and then they could leave money to their children and have a bigger benefit. that's the way to reduce wealth and inequality. >> i'm going to build on that, steve and say maybe the parents could start the plan for the kid and the kid becomes working age, they can contribute. they can get jobs and add to it. wherein the constitution, i mean this comes back to the conversation about what the right in this country, right? where in the constitution did it say that education is a fundamental right and that we have to pay for everyone's education. kids need to be caught responsibility and thinking about the future. it doesn't matter the background >> that's interesting. i mean, i think by the way, we could have that debate about whether or not education is a right but healthcare is a right but we're not having that debate david: we are. >> all we're saying is theres various things we can do for poor people, they can lower their taxes as jonas said which is a silly idea because they don't pay taxes or we can figure out a way to give them money. >> no, but the payroll tax, the money they put in that's taxes
they pay. poor people pay payroll taxes and they don't get any savings or investment or ownership out of it. i'm saying let's give every single worker in america ownership at american companies, that would reduce wealth and inequality. >> just to be clear, the president did increase the child tax credit substantially, you already get $2,000 and that is sort of means tested if you makeover i think $200,000 as a single parent you don't get it any more so they are already increasing the amount of money you get as a child. now could the parents invest that but of course this gets to the broader issue is how do you stop this wealth? all these other plans whether they're 529s and i'm an investment advisor, they only lead to middle and upper class people making more money because poor people aren't going to use these tax benefited programs, so they actually increase wets and equality. if you set it up -- david: it would if you put the money in their account. >> well then you'll have the debate why wouldn't they just give them the money at 18 why have this fiction there's a
savings account with a fantasy 3 % run over 18 years like it's some trust fund. if that's really what you want to do just write the poor people -- david: i have to say there's another fiction which is that re distribution plans create wealth. i've never seen that happen and i don't think it'll happen this time. meanwhile what is france's new digital tax on tech giants have to do with wine? we're going to reveal that answer right after a quick break president trump: i've always liked american wines bitter than french wines, even though i don't drink wine. i just like the way they look. and here we have another burst pipe in denmark. if you look close... jamie, are there any interesting photos from your trip? ouch, okay. huh, boring, boring, you don't need to see that. oh, here we go. can you believe my client steig had never heard
meeting with u.s. attorney general bill barr to discuss big tech company's competition and the various anti-trust actions against them. now facebook's co-create or is even pushing for a breakup at his former social media giant so does the government need to step in here and do something? >> well whether or not government needs to step in and do something the governments meaning the federal and state and local governments, are going to and non-u.s. governments are going to step in and do a lot of things and there's a fascinating case study going on because as we see these businesses are on fire and doing really well despite all of the criticism, despite all of the scrutiny and yet we know these thins hurt over time. you can see this from what happened to microsoft so the challenge is how are they going to react, are they going to have 10 years of stagnation the way microsoft did or can they skate through it better than microsoft did? >> you know, david i would like to see the american government, the justice department, the
treasury, defend american companies. you've got all these other countries that are going after google, and facebook, and others for these ridiculous charges of monopoly, and rather than the government, our own government is going after their own companies i'd like to see them defend these companies, because i'm proud of the fact that apple and facebook and amazon and netflix are american-made companies. >> steve i think you've got your agencies confused. that's the commerce department's job. the justice department's job is to enforce the anti-trust laws. i'm just saying. but i'm with you. you'll have to do our jobs. >> anti-trust is enforced both by commerce and by the justice department. >> i will note it was the ftc that fined facebook $5 billion recently for their violation and incidentally, if you think it's about $10 billion in eu is foreign fines essentially which is actually why i don't think they get broken up now because they are such a cash cow in fines and now
taxes, that i think you'd never be able to get $10 billion out of 10 smaller search engines and that would never happen. >> how very cynical of you. >> i'd like to get better regulations where they behave less like monopoly because they did go too long. i don't want them to be broken up. i don't think they need to be broken up but maybe stop buying their competitors as they grow in size and then they won't be so powerful in the future, but again, with this cash cow that's now appearing to our government and to foreign governments, i don't see that any time soon. >> well the stock prices there are showing they are slugging off the threat at least for now. france already cracking down on our tech companies, and now president trump says he might put a tariff on french wine in response to france's digital pact listen to this. president trump: they didn't do the right thing. when they start taxing our companies, we tax our companies. they don't tax our companies, so france did that. i told them, i said don't do it because if you do it i'm going to tax your wine with a tariff
or tax, call it whatever you want, so yeah, we're working on that right now. >> so the real most important question here, jonas whose wine is better? >> [laughter] >> there was a trump wine actually, i think there still is >> there was. >> i didn't know that. >> there's a lot of trump things out there but we may have been to some trump hotels it's amazing. do you know something i can understand where the french are coming believe it or not and first of all the tech industry at least the advertising side is dominated by our countries, partially because of the low regulations all these years but also because this has always been the innovative hot bed where we are in california and that said they don't have this industry to tax and yet there is legitimately revenues not getting booked by these countries. they don't pay a lot of tax, they send revenues through ireland. i can understand why france wants to tax revenues earned in france, and seriously is adding a sales tax but effectively it is a california tax because that's where the revenue is
really being earned. >> but there's a much higher level point here, david. this is the president was once again sort of making one man rule. i mean, he's confusing things. we do tax foreign companies on their activities, in the united states, which is what the french are proposing right or wrong and you don't respond to a policy proposal in another country, with a tariff proposal in your country. it's just a horrible way to conduct international commerce in my humble opinion. david: you said you don't respond that way, but donald trump does respond that way. >> yeah, i'm well aware. david: what do you think, steve >> well look, i don't like trade wars and i don't like tariffs but a tit-for-tat can force the other country to back down here and that way, you get neither country raising tariffs. david: by the way just for the record donald trump says he doesn't drink. he never has drunk so question of whether he knows how the american wine is so much better than french wine. anyway i know whose pushing for this very strong the italian wine makers because they would
take home the keg here. moving on up the budget bill has passed the house and is on to the senate as gop law makers remain divided about hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending and republicans voting for claiming the bill is misunderstood, the head of the conservative group club for growth, david mcintosh re
i'm really into this car, but how do i know if i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar.
spending is now headed for the senate. house republicans were split on the plan with 132 voting no and only 65 in favor. now one of those yes votes was congressman mac thornberry here is what he said on bulls & bears yesterday. >> one of the big misunderstandings is that somehow, this increases spending by $300 billion, and no it's 300 billion over sequester, which would never have occurred. the other big misunderstanding is this is the budget. no, this is less than 30% of the budget. 70% of the budget where all the increases have taken place is mandatory spending. david: here now is club for growth president david mcintosh, so club for growth proposes the bill how do you respond to republicans who say they needed this deal to help trump get re-elected? >> i think it hurts his re-election. he's going to be fine because his omb worked hard to keep the spending lower and within those
sequester limits. essentially, you've got three parties up on the hill. you've got the republicans that are supporting the president, less government, you've got the democrats that want bigger government and then you've got the appropriate or, republican and democrats that always want to spend money, and this is a deal guided by the republican appropriation and the democrats, they said you give us 50% for defense, we'll give you 50% for welfare and social programs, and we'll all be happy. the problem is republicans as a party always go back to their base and say that we're going to cut spending. we're going to reduce the size of government. well this vote showed at most you've got two-thirds of the republicans in the house that will do that but a third join right in with the spending. >> you know, david one of my concerns i kind of share your concern, putting aside the policy here, which was bad, because it blows holes in these budget caps. by the way they say this is just $300 billion about the sequester level. well those are the spending cuts that republicans put in plus and
they were supposed to it's so frustrating to hear that argument but i'm worried as you are about the politics of this. i just think republicans have demoralized a lot of their voter s. you have a lot of activists who feel there ain't a dimes worth of difference between these two parties. what is your take on that? >> i think you're absolutely right, steve, and what republicans now have to do is turn to new creative ways of showing they're going to reduce the size and scope of government by the way kudos to you and jeff for a great idea of creating private accounts and social security . that's another way you can take government out of the equation. but this budget deal that went the wrong-way. >> well i'm not sure, i think the president is getting away from the whole debt ceiling and i don't know if that was ever good for the party from just a pure voting point of view. kind of angered people i think, but specifically the budget, david, i mean do you really think there's going to be a way to close this growing budget
deficit now in a hot economy, and get it back to a balanced budget without some sort of tax increase since there's obviously no spending cuts coming any more like how do we go down the path in germany where they work on a balanced budget without raising taxes at this point? >> so that is the problem, right? when i was there in the 90s what we did was we didn't really cut that much spending but we put the brakes on it so that let a growing economy and lower taxes bring in a lot more money because when the economy grows that's the biggest increase for revenues for the federal government but they're not willing to do it. they are just more money, we'll spend it and in fact if we don't have enough we'll spend it still and nobody seems to worry about debt and deficits any more, so let's keep spending. that attitude, unfortunately, turns off as steve points a huge part of the republican base, and they already believe their politicians don't always tell them the truth, so it's very, i could see some primaries coming out of this, where people get challenged, some members forced
to retire. >> david, this is adam lashinsky with fortune magazine in san francisco. i agree with your political assessment completely although i'd point out to you that 65 republicans those aren't all appropriations, but where my observation is that where i disagree with you is what you just said. i think at the end of the day, there's a large part of the republican base and voters that simply don't care about this. they care about immigration and conservative justice is on the supreme court, and your issue, this is your primary issue. it's in a distant third place for those voters and those members. what do you think about that? >> you know, so we do a lot of polling in different races, and you're right. those other issues are very very strong, probably more now than when we had the tea party and the huge deficits after the bail out, but they still rank up there. often the one or two biggest issues that we see is that somebody has voted to increase the debt and that's the way the
voters respond to it, but you're right. it's more of an integrity question. do they believe these republican s when they say yeah, we're going to cut spending when they vote time and time again to increase it. >> let me ask you this though don't you think the president was under pressure to move forward with it to a certain extent because the democrats would fight him every step of the way and aren't we in a worse position when we have stalemate positions where all of a sudden, you know, there could be a government shutdown, and people aren't getting paid and we have these problems that trickle down as a result of it. wasn't his arm kind of twisted here? they are always going to want to fight back and spend more. >> i think that's a really good point. the president is at the beginning through omb tried to put out reasonable cuts that could do in the end, steve mnuchin wasn't a very good negotiator and he let mcconnell and pelosi and the democrats kind of run circles around him and ended up with exactly what they wanted to spend and then the president didn't want to shutdown government, wanted to focus on others.
>> david, even the most moderate democrats running now have trillion dollar programs. i mean, we are complaining now about 320 billion extra spending we just had gillibrand who used to be a moderate when she was here in new york instead of campaigning around the country. she just came out with a $10 trillion green plan of her own yesterday. what happens, i mean, that's the argument that a lot of republicans are making that yeah , it's a hard pill to swallow, but if we have to fight out over the budget between now and the election, the democrats are going to win and we're going to be talking about $10 trillion increases in the budget. >> well part of that just shows they're not willing to really put muscle behind what they campaign on, and fight to not increase those spending. yes, when it's a binary choice the republicans are going to be better although the voters are starting to say we don't really see a difference when it comes to each one of these budget deals. what will you do if the green
deal comes up? you tell us you're against it now, but will you come back and say well we cut a dell and we have half of a green now deal. that would really turn off the republican base, but they get the glimpse that that's what these politicians end up doing. david: david mcintosh, great to see you. not the most uplifting conversation, but we have to talk about these things, meanwhile three new bills introduced to congress yesterday showing bipartisan support actually is possible, but wait until you hear what they all have in common. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem...
david: a renewed push for a carbon tax is getting some bipartisan support as three house bills were introduced yesterday, one by republican congressman francis rooney, two by democrats to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but is a carbon tax really necessary? >> david i've got to say no on this one. in terms of the scheme of things that the president is looking at right now this is probably lower
on the list and let's look at it this way. we are just one of the polluters in this global stage that we're playing in. if all of a sudden you implement a tax like this and start really squeezing small, medium, even large businesses with these extra onerous taxes and energy costs they are going to have really hard time competing and that's actually one of the fights that president trump is dealing with right now on the trade side of things. he's trying to level the playing field because businesses in this country are struggling to compete with china to compete with mexico for example. remember we're only a piece of the larger puzzle in terms of the fish he has to fry, he has bigger fish on his plate i don't see this going anywhere. >> first of all, you don't do anything all of a sudden, right? so you phase these things in, you give people warning and yes we're part of a global environmental echosystem, but we do have the ability to number one, do what we can in our country and number two, to raise revenue while we're doing it.
we have carbon taxes, by the way one of themes called the gasoline tax and it works pretty well. >> yeah it does and those are very regressive taxes so the poor are going to pay the most part of it. look the problem with what you just said even if the united states didn't exist as a nation and we made it zero carbon we would have almost no impact on what's happening in the globe because china, india, vietnam, pakistan indonesia, i mean every time we shutdown a coal plant they build 10 of them. it's like saying oh, there's over population in africa so everyone in the united states should put on a condom. it just doesn't make any sense. >> oh, okay. >> [laughter] >> i won't go there. >> i'll say jackie, first of all it is a global problem that 27 countries have some sort of carbon tax at this point so some countries are trying to solve it do we need it? i don't know if it will solve global warming to be honest. i don't think it would be high enough to ever do that if every country has to do that which
they aren't because countries like china won't do ones that high, it wouldn't be necessary. as far as the gas tax which hasn't gone up since like the clinton administration if that's working so well i don't know why everyone is driving around in a giant suv in traffic. i don't know how well that's working. i do think we need a tax at some point to close the trillion dollar budget deficit every that we're running in good times so when it's time to do another tax , it might as well be taxing something a little regressive steve because i think the tax code is already a little too progressive and the tax area maybe because of an investment advisor so we could use regressive taxation. a lot of fuel burning is done across the board, it's not just by a handful of rich people in corporate jets and i will say that rather than tax income higher which is a negative to growth maybe taxing pollution or energy, i'd do more straight and direct on electrical bills so people can see what their taxes are and not hide it in a carbon tax is a good way to close the deficit if we don't just spend it on new programs which we will do. david: by the way we have been
here before. there was a trade sort of like a carbon tax that was put fourth, it was passed by a democratic house but the senate which was controlled by harry reid the democrat did not pass it because it was tremendous pushback by small businesses, they spend 10, 20, 30% of their costs on energy , those costs, in some cases, would double if they try it again there's going to be a big pushback by small business. they're afraid. >> david do you know what country in the world over the last two years reduced its carbon emissions the most? david: the united states of america. >> do you know how that happened? david: natural gas. >> and a lot of it is against natural gas. david: well late night tv host jimmy kimmel is flagging a potential snag in bernie sanders ' medicare for all push. we got details of that, coming up next. great riches will find you when liberty mutual
we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold. what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'd rather not.
>> medicare for all, one thing that makes it different from some of your fellow candidates is that you want to get, do away with private insurance altogether. >> yes. >> now i worry that that twist makes it an impossible sell for people. >> i don't think so. i think it's exactly what the american people want, polling suggests that. david: well 2020 hopeful senator bernie sanders defending his position to eliminate private insurance after tv host jimmy kimmel expressed concern that the policy could be "an impossible sell for voters." so whose right here? >> well, this is the first time i've ever agreed with that famous economist jimmy kimmel, but of course he's right. you know, i want -- >> political philosopher. >> medicare for all is incidentally they keep talking about how bernie sanders is saying well medicare saves money because it costs less for private insurance. what he doesn't get is that the
way that medicare saves money is the to pass a lot of cost on to the private insurers. david if you get ready of the private insurers then who covers the cost of the medicare? >> there's no question i'd rather have late night comedy host designing our health care plan than bernie sanders because bernie sanders' plan never really made a lot of sense. there is this obvious issue that nobody wants to scrap this existing system which is by obama administration was developed around this existing system but i think let's pretend there was no existing private we were starting a new country and do it from scratch. even then this notion that government is going to do this better than private care. if you look at the countries that have the best healthcare costs delivered it's not the ones that are the most national ized like the va, it's like singapore and germany and france and they have plenty of private health care insurance and it's managed paid by government, the rules are by government. that's where it make sense but it's not operated exclusively by government that doctors don't work for the government.
those are the signs of a bad failing system and if bernie wants to go european and asian he's got to look at countries that have a functional system they don't ice the private, by the way our countries worse than any country at running something , so i would think we'd be very bad at running the system as well, and even if that was the way to go which it's not >> well, i think that kimmel obviously has it right political ly. we're not going to do away with the private, you won't tell people with private insurance they can no longer have private insurance and jonas had it exactly right. this wasn't where obama wanted to go with health care, but it was the best way to try to do something with the private health insurance market, that we already have, and the republican s really got hurt in 2018 for what they've done to that program, abdomen so that's where the debate out to go in 2020 for the democrats in my opinion. >> i think the voters will have a real hard time with this even with obamacare reformsing this
system. they were told they could go to their doctors and things would stay the same. they were happy with their healthcare and they found serious problems in the system where it actually deteriorated when they see this they will say no way. >> david: and he talks about the quality of care, how that will improve under government control. i challenge him to go to britain , spend a month in a hospital, in great britain and say that the quality of health care in those hospitals is better than hours. >> depends who you are, david. if you have no healthcare the then that would be a very valid statement and if you do -- david: any hospital. any hospital in the u.s. compar ed to a hospital in the uk. >> healthcare is all i'm saying that's what he's saying. david: well i think all i'm saying is that the quality if the quality of health care is your number one priority, then you got to look at what actually exists. go ahead jonas. >> to trump's original call which was about this we could have been a contender in healthcare instead we are a bum and there are countries that do this better.
they are not the ones where government controls everything. that's where the lines are. that's where you wait six months for surgery. people still come here for that but if you want to get the costs down, there are other countries to model after. i don't think bernie understands how they run in those countries, because what he proposes doesn't make any sense and as the va- style system that doesn't work very well. david: last word well forget soccer are you ready for the fortnite world cup? thousands of gamers are converg ing in new york city this weekend for what some are calling biggest video game tournament ever, and wait until you hear how much players as young as 12 years old, could win in prize money, details that will astound you,
they will compete for the largest cash pool for e-sports events. each can win $3 million. would you play man -- pay money to watch a 12-year-old play a video game? >> i would not pay a dime to go into a stadium to watch this kind of thing. but i am not the target. amazon owns twitch which i think they bought for a billion dollars. this is a really big business. all i can say is who are we to judge. >> this has swept the nation. any time you add this prize money to it, it will become even bigger. but you are only the greatest
thing until the next thing comes out. fortnight might have a bit of a run left. >> it's a horrible thing. i have got teenagers and that's all they do. >> at 15 winning a million dollars. that sounds like a career to me. some of them are making more money playing video games than they would in a lifetime. robots are going to be sitting in front of games. you talk about the guy who cheated with chess with a phone. no one wants a phone to win,
they want the person to win. >> that sounds like an addiction. david: it does, but it's sweeping the nation. like the or n (announcer) the following is a paid presentation for prostagenix, brought to you by prostatereport.com. (upbeat music) ♪ hi, this is larry king. over 30 million men in america have prostrate problems. i know, i was one of them. and all these natural prostate supplements like the ones i have here in front of me are everywhere. drugstores, health food stores, on the internet, and all over tv, selling millions of bottles every year.