tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News October 2, 2015 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT
-- the history of how that happened. if have some rather grim memories of it. but the notion was that even as we were bringing down the deficit, we would come up with a sustainable, smart, long-term approach to investing in the things we need. that didn't happen now. the cutted that have been maintained have been keeping our economy from glowing faster -- from growing faster. it's time to undo them. don't we'll have to fund our priority inside 2016 at the same level wed did in 2006. understand, during that decade between 2006 and 2016, our economy has grown by 12%. our population has grown by 8%. new threats of emerged.
new opportunities have appeared. we can't fund our country the way we did ten years ago because we have greater demands with an population, with kids who need schools, with roads that need to be fixed. with a military on which we are placing extraordinary demands. we can't cut our way to prosperity. other countries have tried and it it has not worked. we have grown faster than they have because we did not pursue these blind unthinking cuts to necessary investments for our growth. and we have brought our deficits down faster than they have. want it to repeat this because the public apparently never believes it, since i took office we have cut our deficits by
two-thirds. the deficit has not been going up it has been coming down we cut the deficit bid two-thirds. they're below the average deficit over the past 40 years. so the bottom line is congress has to do its job. it can't flirt with another shutdown and should pass a serious budget. if they do and get rid of mindless cuts even as we're prudent about maintaining the spending we need and not spending we don't need and is not working, their on nonpartisan budget office estimates we'llhead an extra half million jobs to our economy next year alone. we can immediately put half a million more people back to work. if we just have a more sensible budgets. in these negotiations nobody will get everything they want. we have to work together, though, even if we disagree in
order to do the people's business. now, at some point, we have to want to govern and not just play politics or play to various political bases. at some point we need to pass bills so that we can rebuild our roads and keep our kids learning and keep our military strong and help people prepare for and recover from disasters. that is congress' most basic job. that what our government is supposed to do. serve the american people. so, with that, let me take some questions andll start with jewelry pace of a.p., hang in there kids. >> thank you marx president. there have been several developments in syria i wanted to ask you about, starting with russia reside involvement. you met with president putin this week, and i wonder if you think he was honest with you about his intentions in syria. if russia is targeting groups beyond the islamic state, include u.s. aligned groups does the u.s. military have an
obligation to protect them? and on the situation in syria more broadly, there have been failures in the u.s. train and equip program. do you believe that program can be fixed or do you have to look at other options? would you in particular be willing to reconsider a no-fly zone which several candidates, including you're former secretary of state, are now calling for. >> well, first and foremost, let's understand what is napping syria and how we got here. in what started off as peaceful protests, against assad, the president, evolved into a civil war because assad met those protests with unimaginable brutality. and so this is not a conflict between the united states and any party in syria. this is a conflict between the syrian people and a brutal,
ruthless dictator. point number two is that the reason assad is still in power is because russia and iran have supported him. throughout this process. and in that sense what russia is doing now is not particularly different from what they had been doing in the past. they're just nor overt about it. they've been propping up a regime that is rejected by an overwhelming majority of the syrian population. because they have seen he has been willing to drop baseball bombs on children and villages indiscriminately, and has been more concerned about clinging to power than the state of his country. so, in my discussions with president putin i was very clear. that the only way to solve the problem in syria is to have a
political transition that is inclusive that keeps the state intact, keeps the military intact, that maintains cohesion but is inclusive, and the only way to accomplish that is for mr. assad to transition because you cannot rehabilitate him in the eyes of syrians. this is not a judgment i'm making. it is judgment that the overall whelming majority of syrians make. and i said to mr. putin i'd be prepared to work with him if he is willing to broker with his partners, mr. assad, and iran, political transition. we can bring the rest of the world community to a brokered solution. but that a military solution alone, an attempt by russia and iran to prop up assad and try to pacify the population, is just
going to get them stuck in a quagmire. and it won't work. and they will be there for a while. if they don't take a different course. i also said to him that it is true that the united states and russia and the entire world have a common interest in destroying isil. but what was very clear, and regardless of what mr. putin said, was he doesn't distinguish between isil and a moderate sunni opposition that wants to see mr. assad go. from their perspective they're all terrorists. and that's a recipe for disaster and one if reject. so, -- one i reject. so where we are now is that we are having technical conversations deconflict union
so we're not firefights in the area, andon that we're clear in sticking to to our life and our policy the problem here is assad and the brutality he has inflicted on the syrian people and it has to stop, and in order for it to stop, we're prepared to work with all the parties concerned, but we are not going to cooperate with a russian campaign to simply try to destroy anybody who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. keep in mind also from a practical perspective, the moderate opposition in syria is one that, if we ever have to have a political transition, we need. and the russian policy is
driving those folks underground or creating a situation in which they are deexamination tated and it's only strengthening -- deexamination tated and that's only strengthening icele and that's not good for anybody in terms of our support of opposition groups inside osyria, i made very clear early on that the united states couldn't impose a military solution on syria either. but that it was in our interests to make sure that we were engaged with moderate opposition inside of syria because eventually syria will fall. the assad regime will fall and we have too have somebody we're working with we can help pick up the pieces and stitch back together a cohesive, coherent country. and so we will continue to support them. the training and equip program
was a specific initiative by the defense department to see if we could get some of that moderate opposition to focus attention on isil in the eastern portion of the country, and i'm the first one to acknowledge it has not worked the way it was supposed to, julie, and the department of defense would say the same thing. and part of the reason, frankly, is because when we tried to get them to just focus on isil, the response we would get back is how can we focus on isil when every single day we have barrel bombs and attacks from the regime? and so it's been hard to get them to reprioritize looking east when they've got bombs coming at them from the west. so, what we're doing with the train and equip is looking at where we have had success, for example, working with some of
the kurdish community, and the east, that pushed isil out, seeing if we can build on that, but what we're also going to continue to do is to have contacts with and work with opposition that right by believes in the absence of some change in government, inside of syria, we're going to continue to see civil war, and that is going to turbo charge isil recruitment and jihaddist recruitment and we'll continue to have problems. now, last point i just want to make about this, because sometimes the conversation here on the beltway differs from the conversation internationally. mr. putin had to go into syria, not out of strength but out of weakness. because his client, mr. assad,
was crumbling and it was insufficient for him simply to send them arms and money. now he has to put in his own planes and his own pilots. and the notion that he put forward a plan and that somehow the international community sees that as viable because there's a vacuum there i didn't see every he made the speech the u.n. that suddenly the coalition we have start lining up behind him. iran and assad make up mr. putin's coalition at the moment. the rest of the world makes up ours. so i don't think people are fooled by the current strategy. it does not mean that we could not see mr. putin begin to
recognize that it is in their interests to broker a political settlement. and as i said, in new york, we're prepared to work with the russians, and the iranians, as well as our partners, who are part of the anti-isil coalition, to come up with that political transition, and nobody pretends it's going to be easy but it think it is still possible and so we'll maintain lines of communication, but we are not going to be able to get those negotiations going if there's not a recognition that there's got to be a change in government. we're not going to go back to the status quo. and the kinds of air strikes that russia is engaging in will be counterproductive and move us fur that are away rather thanked twos the ultimate solution we should be looking for.
[inaudible question] >> julie, throughout this process. i think people have constantly looked for a easy, low-cost answer, whether it is -- we should have sent more rifles in early and somehow then everything would have been okay. or if i had taken that shot, even after assad offered to give up his chemical weapons, then immediately things would have folded or the assad regime would have folded and we would have suddenly seen a peaceful syria. this is a hugely difficult, complex problem. and i would have hoped that we
would have learned that from afghanistan and iraq. where we have devoted enormous time and effort and resources, with the very best people, and have given the afghan people and the iraqi people an opportunity for democracy, but it's still hard as we saw this week in afghanistan. that's not by virtue of a lack of effort or commitmentment we still have ten thousand folks in afghanistan. we're still spending billions of dollars supporting the government and it's still tough. so, when i make a decision about the level of military involvement that we're prepared to engage in, in syria, i have to make a judgment based ons we start something, we have to finish it. and we have to do it well. and do we infact have the
resources and the capacity to make a serious impact, understanding we have still got to go after isil in iraq, we still have to support the training of an iraqi military that is weaker than any of us perceived, that we still have business to do in afghanistan. and so i pushed and have consistently over the last four or five years, sought out a wide range of opinions about stepped we can take potentially to move syria in a better direction. i am under in illusions what an incredible humanitarian catastrophe this and is the hardships that we're seeing and the refugees that are traveling in very dangerous circumstances and now creating real political problems among our allies in
europe, and the heartbreaking images of children drowned, trying to escape war. and the potential impact of such a destabilized country on our allies in the region. but what we have learned over the last 10, 12, 13 years, is that unless we can get the parties on the ground to agree to live together in some fashion, then no amount of u.s. military engagement will solve the problem, and we will find ourselves either doing just a little bit and not making a difference, and losing credibility that way, or finding ourselves drawn in deeper and deeper in those situations that we can't sustain.
so, -- and when i hear people offering up half-baked ideas, as if they are solutions, for trying to downplay the challenges involved in this situation, -- what i'd like to see people ask is, specifically, precisely, what exactly would you do and how would you fund and it how would you sustain it? and typically what you get is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. so, these are hard challenges. they are ones that we are going to continue to pursue. the topline message want everybody to understand is we'll continue to go after isil. we are going to continue to reach out to a moderate opposition. we reject russia's theory that
everybody opposed to assad is a terrorist. we think that is self-defeats and will get them into a quagmire and be used as a further recruitment tool for foreign fighters. we will work with the international community and our coalition to relieve the humanitarian pressure on refugees. we're working with the turks ano along the border to make things safer for people. but. maltly we have to find -- ultimately we have to find a way for a political transition to solve syria. john karlson. >> thank you, mr. pratt. in july you said the gun issue has been the most frustrating of your presidency and we heard that frustration from you last night. >> yep. >> so in the last 15 months of your presidency, do you intend to do anything differently to get congress to act or to do something about this gun violence problem?
i have to get you to respond to something that jeb bush just said, and to be fair, to governor bush i want to read it directly. asked about the drive to take action in light of what happened in oregon, he said: look, stuff happens. there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do. how would you react to governor bush? >> i don't think i have to react to that one. i think the american people should hear that and make their own judgments based on the fact that every couple of months, we have a mash shooting. -- a mass shooting, and in terms of -- and they can decide whether they consider that stuff happening. and in terms of what i can do,
i've asked my team, as i have in the past, to scrub what kinds of authorities do we have to enforce the laws that we have, and place more effectively to keep guns of it the hands of criminalities. are there additional actions we can take that might prevent even a handful 0 of these tragic deaths from taking place, but as i said last night, this will not change until the politics changes and the behavior of elected officials changes. and so the main thing i'm going to do is i'm going to talk about this on a regular basis, and i will politicize it because our inaction is a political decision we're making. the reason that congress does not support even the modest gun
safety laws we proposed after sandy hook is not because the majority of the american people don't support it. i mean, normally politicians are responsive to the views of the electorate. here you have majority of the american people think it's the right thing to do. background checks, other common sense steps that would maybe save some lives. couldn't even get a full vote. and why is that? because of politics. because interest groups, fund campaigns, feed people fear, and in fairness, it's not just in the republican party, although the republican party is just uniformly opposed to all gun safety laws.
and unless we change that political dynamic, we're not going to be able to make a big dent in this problem. for example, you'll hear people talk about the problems is not guns, it's mental illness. well, if you talk to people who study this problem, it is true that the majority of these mass shooters are angry young men but there are hundreds of millions of angry young men around the world. tens of millions of ang degree young men and most of them don't shoot. doesn't help us just to identify -- the majority of people who have mental illnesses are not shooters. so, we can't sort through and identify ahead of time who might take actions like this. the only thing we can do is make sure that they can't have an entire arsenal when something snaps in them. and if we're going to too something about that, the
politics have to change. the politics have to change. and the people who are troubled by this have to be as intense and as organized and as adamant about this issue as folks on the other side who are absolutists and think that any gun safety measures are somehow an assault on freedom or communistic, or a plot by me to take over. and stay in power forever or something. i mean, there are all kinded on crack pot conspiracy theories, some of which are ratified by elected officials on in the party on occasion. so we have to change the politics of this and that requires people to feel not just feel deeply -- because i get a lot of letter after this happened. do something.
well, okay, hearings what you need to do. you have to make sure that anybody who you are voting for is on the right sites of -- right side of this issue, and even if they're great on other stuff, you have to vet against them and let them know why. and you just have to for a while be a single issue voter because that is what is happening on the other side. and that's going to take some time. the nra has had a good start. they have been at this a long time. they perfected what they do. you got to give them credit. they're very effective because they don't represent the majority of the american people, but they know how to stir up fear and know how to stir up the base, how to raise money, how to scare politicians, they know how to organize campaigns.
and the american people are going to have to match them in their sense of urgency if we're actually going to stop this, which isn't to say stopping all violence weapon won't stop all violence. violence exists around the world, sadly. part of original sin. but our homicide rates are just a lot higher than other places. that by the way have the the same levels of violence. it's just you can't kill as many people when you don't have easy access to these kinds of weapons. and i'm deeply saddened about what happened yesterday but arne is going back to chicago. let's not a forget, this is happening every single day in forgotten neighborhood around the country. every single day.
kids are just running for their lives trying to get to school. we were down in new orleans, with a group of young men, when we were talking about katrina, and i've got two young men next to me, blowing of them had been shot multiple times -- both of them had been shot multiple timed. they were barely 20. so, we have to make a decision. if we think that's normal, then we have to own it. i don't think it's normal. i think it's abnormal. i think we should shaken it but i can't do it by myself. so many thing i'll do, john, is talk about it. and hope that over time i'm changing enough minds along with other leaders around the country that we start finally seeing some action. i don't think it's going to
happen overnight. cheryl. >> thank you, mr. president. to go back to your opening remarks, you said that you won't sign another short-term cr. but as you know, yesterday secretary lew announced the government's borrowing authority would run out around november 5th. would you recommend negotiating an increase in the debt ceiling as part of the budget negotiations on spending caps and also to the speaker's race complicate the negotiations. >> i'm sure the speaker's race complicates these negotiations. that was a rhetorical question. it will complicate the negotiations, but when it comes to the debt ceiling, we're not going to back there. maybe it's been a while so let me just refresh everybody's memory. raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more.
it simply authorizes us to pay the bills that we have already incurred. it is the way for the united states to maintain its good credit rating. the full faith and credit of the united states. historically, we do not mess with it. if it gets messed with, it would have profound implications for the global economy and could put our financial system in the kind of tailspin we saw back in 2007-2008. a bad thing to do. sore we're not going to negotiate on that. it has to get done in the next five weeks. so, even though the continuing resolution to keep the government open lasts ten weeks, we have to get the debt ceiling raised in five. you have a shorter timetable to get that done.
but here's the bottom line. mitch mcconnell, john boehner, myself, nancy pelosi, harry reid, we have all spoken and talked about trying to negotiate a budget agreement. and, yes, speaker boehner's decision to step down complicated it, but i do think there's stale path for us to come up with a reasonable agreement that raises the spending caps above success at - sequester to make sure we finance defense and nondefense needs, that maintains a prudent control of our deficits, and that we can do that in short order. it's not that complicated. there's the -- the math is the math. and what i have encouraged is
that we get started on the work immediately, and we push through over the next several weeks, and try to leave out ex-trainous issues -- extraneous issues that may prevent us from getting a budget agreement. i know, for example, that there are many republicans who are exercised about planned parenthood. -- ex-ore sitessed about planned parenthood. i deeply disagreewith them on that issue and it's mischaracterized what planned parenthood does. but i understand that they feel strongly about it and i respect that. but you can't have an issue like that potentially wreck the entire u.s. economy. anymore than i should hold the entire budget hostage to my desire to do something about gun
violence. i feel just as strongly about that. i think i've got better evidence for it. but the notion that i would threaten the republicans that unless they pass gun safety measures that would stop mass shootings, i'm going to shut down the government not sign an increase in the debt ceiling would be irresponsible of me. and the american people rightly would reject that. well, same is true for them. there's some fight wed fight individually. they want to defunded planned parenthood. there's a way to do it. pass a law. override my veto. that's true across a whole bun of issues they disagree with me on. that's how democracy works. i got no problem with that. but you have to govern.
and i -- and i'm hoping that the next speaker understands that the problems speaker boehner lad or mitch mcconnell had in not dismantling obamacare or not eliminating the department of education, or not deporting every immigrant in this country, was not because speaker boehner or mitch mcconnell didn't care about conservative principles. it had to do with the fact they can't detroit our system of government. which requires compromise. just like i can't do everything i want and pass an immigration bill or gun safety bill. and that doesn't mean that i throw a tantrum and try to wreck the economy and put hard-working americans, who are just now able to dig themselves out of a massive recession, put them in
harm's way. wrong thing to do. peter alexander. >> thank you, mr. president. you addressed, i want to follow up on john's question about the issue that is deeply personal and moving to you, the gun issue. apart from congress' inaction, apart from the desire from new laws andon that, apart from the gun lobby, as you noted, the pattern is that these perpetrators are angry, aggrieved, often times mentally ill, young men. is there something that you can do with bully pulpit, with your moral authority, with your remaining time in office to help reach these individuals who believe that gun violence is the way out? >> no. i think i can continue to speak to the american people as a whole. and hopefully model for them
basic social norms about rejecting violence and cooperation and caring for other people, but there are lot of young men out there. and having been one myself once, i can tell you that us being able to identify or pinpoint who might have problems is extraordinarily difficult. so, i think we as a culture should continue obviously -- continueously think about how to insurgent tour our kids, protect our kids, talk to them about conflict resolution, discouraging violence. there are part communities where, rather than mass shootings, you see normal
interaction that used to be settled with a fistfight, settled with guns where maybe intervention programs programs d mentorship can workful. that's what's we are trying to encourage through "my brother's keeper." but when it comes to reaching every disaffected young man, 99% of them -- 99.9% of whom will hopefully grow out of it, i don't think there's a silver bullet there they way to solve this problem is that when they act out, when they're disturbed, when that particular individual has a problem, they can't easily access weapons that can perpetrate mass violence on a lot of people. because that what other countries do. again, i want to emphasize this. there's no showing that somehow we are inherently more violent than any other advanced nation.
or that young men are inherently more violent in our nation than they are in other nations. i will say young men inherently are more violent than the rest of the population, but there's no sense that somehow this is something in the american character that is creating this. levels of violence are on par between the united states and other advanced countries. what is different is homicide rates. and gun violence rates. and mass shooting rates. so, it's not that the behavior or the impulses are necessarily different, as much as it is that they have access to more powerful weapons. julie edwards. >> thank you, mr. president. you just said you reject president putin's approach to
syria and his attack on moderate opposition forces. you said it was a recipe for disaster, but what are you willing to do to stop vladimir t putin. would you consider imposing sanctions against russia or equip moderate rebelled with antiaircraft weapons to protect them from, air attacks and how do you respond to critic whose say putin is outsmarting you and he took a measure of you in ukraine and thought he could get away with that? >> i've heard it all before. thank you: i've got to say, i'm always struck by the degree to which not just critics but i think people buy this narrative. let's think about this. so when i came into office, seven and a half years ago, america had precipitated the worst financial crisis history, dragged the entire world into a massive recession. we were involved in two wars.
with almost no coalition support. u.s. world opinion about the united states was at a nader. we were just barely above russia at that time, and i think potentially slightly below china. and we were shedding 800,000 jobs a month and so on and so forth. and today, we're the strongest large advanced economy in the world. probably one of the few bright spots in the world economy. our approval ratings have gone up. we are more active on more international issues and forge international responses to everything from ebola to countering isil. meanwhile, mr. putin comes into
office at a time when he economy hadn't been growing, and they were trying to pivot to a more diversified economy, and as a consequence of these brilliant moves, their economy is contracting four percent, they're isolated the the world community, subject to sanctions not just apply by us but what used to be some of their closest traiting -- trading partners. their main allies in the middle east were libya and syria. mr. gadhafi and mr. assad. and those countries are falling apart and he has now just had to send in troops and aircraft in order to prop up this regime at the risk of alienating the entire sunni world.
so, what was the question again? i mean, i don't know. i think it's really interesting to understand. russia is not stronger as a consequence of what have been doing. they get attention. the sanctions against ukraine are still in place. and what i have consistently offered, from a position of strength because the united states is not subject to sanctions. and we're not contracting four percent a year. what i've offered is a pathway whereby they can get back on to a path of growth and do right by their people. so, mr. putin's actions have
been successful only insofar as as it's boosted his poll ratings inside of russia, which may be why the beltway is so impressed because that tens to be the measure of success. of course it's easier to do when you have a state-controlled media. but this is not a smart strategic move on russia's part. and what russia has now done is not only committed its own troops into a situation in which the overwhelming majority of the syrian population sees it now as an enemy, but the sunni population throughout the middle east is going to see it as a supporter, an endorser of those barrel bombs landing on kids, at a time when russia has a
significant muslim population inside of its own borders that it needs to worry about. so, i want russia to be successful. this is not a contest between the united states and russia. it is in our interests to russia to be a responsible, effective, actor on the internet -- international stage that can share burden with us, along with china and japan and other countries there's problems we have are big. so i'm hopeful that mr. putin, having made this doubling down of the support he is providing to mr. assad, recognize that this is not going to be a good long-term strategy and that he works instead to bring about a
political settlement, just as i hope that they can resolve the issues with ukraine in a way that recognizes russian equities and upholds the basic principle of sovereignty and independence that the ukrainian people should enjoy like everybody else. but until that time, we're going to continue to have tensions and we'll continue too have differences. but we're not going to make syria interest a proxy war between the united states and russia. that would be bad strategy on our part. this is a battle between russia, iran, and assad, against the overwhelming majority of the syrian people. our battle is with icele and with the entire international community to resolve the conflict in a way that can ebb the bloodshed and end the refugee crisis and allow people to be at home, work, grow food,
shelter their children-send those kids to school. that's the side we're on. this is not some super power chessboard contest, and anybody who frames it in that way isn't paying very close attention to what has been happening on the chessboard. last question. major garrett. >> mr. president good, to see you. >> good to see you. >> for the children there i promise won't take too long. >> i've been boring them to death itch guarantee you. but there have been times where i have snagged rebound ford ryan when he is shooting three-pointer so is he has to put up with this. >> understood. mr. pratt, i wonder if you could tell the country to what degree you were changed or moved what you discussed in private with pope francis, what you think his vie might have men for the country and for democrats who might wonder is it too late for
joe biden to decide to run for president, and lastly, just to clarify to what degree did hillary clinton's endorsement of the no-fly sewn put her in the category of a half baked their use the syria that border oles mumbo jumbo. >> on the latter issue, on the last question you asked, hillary clinton is not have baked in term -- half baked in terms of her approach to these problems. she was obviously my secretary of state. but i also think that there's a difference between running for president and being president. and the decisions that are being made and the discussions i'm having with the joint chiefs become much more specific, and require, i think, a different kind of judgment. and that's what i'll continue to apply.
as long as i'm here, and if and when chev is president, then she'll make those judgments and she has been there enough that she knows that these are tough calls, but that -- no, that's not what i said. that's perhaps what you said. what i'm saying is that we all want to try to relieve the suffering in syria but my job is to make sure that whatever we do, we are doing in a way that serves the national security interests of the american people, that doesn't lead to us getting into things that we can't get out of or that we cannot do effectively. and as much as possible that we're working with international partners. and we're going to continue to explore things we can do to protect people and to deal with
the humanitarian situation there and provide a space in which we can bring about a -- the kind of political transition that is going to be required to solve the problem. and i think hillary clinton would be the first to say that when you're sitting in the seat i'm sitting in, in the situation room, things look a little bit different because she has been right there next to me. i love joe biden and he has his open -- own decision to make and i'll leave it at that. in the meantime he has been doing a great job as vice-president and has been helpful on a lot of issues. pope francis i love. he is a good man. with a warm heart.
and a big moral imagination. and i think he had such an impact on his visit here as he has around the world because he cares so deeply about the least of us, and in that sense expresses what i consider to be as a christian the essence of christianity. he has a good sense of humor. i can't share all his jokes. they were all clean. and as i said in the introduction on the south lawn when he appeared here white house, i think it's really useful he makes us uncomfortable in his gentle way, constantly
prodding people's consciousness and asking everybody across the political spectrum what more you can to be kind and to be helpful and to love. and to sacrifice. and to serve. that sense, i donk he is somebody where we should be applying the typical american political measures of liberal and conservative and left and right. i think he is speaking to all of our of our consciences and and we all have to then search our selves to see if there are ways that we can do better.
i think that when i spend time with somebody like the pontiff, and there are other individuals, some of whom are famous, some of whom are not, but who are good people, and deeply moral, then it makes me want to be better. it makes me want to do better. and those people are great gifts to the world. and sometimes they're just a teacher in a classroom. and sometimes they're -- your neighbor. and sometimes they're your mom. or your wife. sometimes they're your kids. but they can encourage you to be better. that's what we're all trying to do. i think and that's part of the wonderful thing about pope francis is the humility that he
brings to this. his rejection of the absolutism that says -- i'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong. but rather, we are all sinners and we are all children of god. and -- that's a pretty good starting point. for being better. all right? thank you, guys, for your patience. you can now go home. all right. thanks. >> a very deliberate, very cautious barack obama on average he fielded five questions, each averaging about a 10-minute answer. but i did want to correct one thing, who am i to correct the president of the united states, when he referred to the games that the other side are playing with the debt and his own treasury secretary saying by november 10th, they better move fast because we'll be down to our last 30 million and we'll be facing 60 billion in bills.
it was senator obama in march of 2006 who voted against raising the debt limit arguing that increasing america's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. leadership means the buck stops here. instead, shift in the burden of bad choices, to the backs of our children and grandchildren. americans deserve better. i therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase america's debt limit. now all politicians, all men of washington and women evolve. that's fine. but i did want to stipulate that he had very different views on the same subject when it involved a different president at a different time. on this and other issues, specifically the jobs report, and how he framed that, it was weaker-than-expected jobs number. on the idea that maybe this holds off. >> he, that was the first thing he talked about before he even
took one question, he emphasized the positive part of it. to taking credit for that. the 13.2 million new jobs that have been created during the recovery in the economy. but then he pivoted. he essentially said and i'm paraphrasing, that job growth last month would have been better if not for congress creating manufactured crises. and that is well, well that's a tall tale. and he went on to -- >> how could that affect an employer's decision to hire or not? >> it didn't. it doesn't and it didn't. i understand if you get up and you do not raise the debt ceiling and you do have issues with our credit rating. i understand how that could create uncertainty, but that is not the uncertainty that we're talking about. we're talking about an economy, businesses that are burdened with greater regulations, businesses that have trouble making decisions. because of the burden of
obamacare and the like. i don't know how -- i have no idea who, who concocted that theory. that he laid out. >> well then what -- explain this to me, we were down at one point today, 260 points when the jobs data came out, hinting of a slowdown or even worse, we finished up 200. why? >> the jobs number was weaker than expected. but it's not weak enough to suggest a recession. so we have an economy that's growing slowly. we also have a federal reserve that won't be so quick to raise interest rates. you had a draw, you had the rally, but you have interest rates that are in check. we still, which is great, for homeowners, great for the housing market and you have extremely low gas prices that are going lower. that's great for an economy, that 70% of it is based o consumers. >> dagen, thank you very much. a whole hour here of watching this patiently. >> trying to touch your knee. >> take it all in.
dagen, thank you very much. the president did address syria today, kt mcfarland on the fact that the russians don't have the upper hand here. do you agree with him? >> no, in fact i think what he's made clear is he doesn't really clear. he's ceding the entire middle east to the russia/persian alliance. they're going to keep assad in power. they're going to occupy land, that iranians have sent over 100,000 troops, the russians are flying aircraft sortees and obama is in effect saying not my problem. i have got my team. i have got my coalition. russia if you would like to join my coalition, fine, but i'm not going to do anything further. and the great arc of history is on my side. russia you're going to get stuck in a quagmire, so too bad. we're not the only audience. people in moscow are watching this this press conference and people in the middle east are watching this press conference. if you're in moscow what message are you going to take?
keep going. united states is not going to stop us. >> donald trump had said as you know, kt that this is something that the russians ought to fight. don't let him do that i talked to ben carson a short time ago and got his thoughts. >> i do not want to allow vladimir putin to expand his influence. that's been his goal for quite sometime now. he was very disappointed with the dissolution of the soviet union and with his tremendous influence worldwide. we cannot contribute to his ability to regain that. we'll be rerouting the entire interview on monday. he had things to say about some of the other candidates in the race. to ben carson's point that donald trump is wrong, that on this you don't want to cede anything to vladimir putin. what do you think? >> i don't think you do want to cede anything to vladimir putin. because why? that's a part of the world that's very important. not just that it's where oil comes from and putin and the iranians now are going to control that whole region. but it's also where we have
allies that we now are abandoning. so not only in people are moscow watching this, but people in the middle east are watching if you're in israel, what have you concluded? we're on our own. if you're the syrian moderate rebels, we're on our own. president obama is walking away from the middle east. he's leaving it to the russians. and to the iranians. and so assad and iraq and to the shiites and obama is consoling himself with the offer that eventually history will prove him right if you're in the middle east today, you've just been abandoned. >> kt, if it's syria, iran and russia on the same side, versus the rest of the world, is he right? >> what's the rest of the world? the rest of the world probably isn't going to play in this. but what about the people in the region? we have just spent probably three decades involved in this part of the world trying to stabilize it. we've made mistakes. we're walking away from our
allies in the region. for example today, yesterday, when the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu made a speech at the united nations guess who was pointedly not there? the american ambassador. what does that say? that says israel, you're on your own and when obama can talk about the great art of history, the quagmire that russia is going to get stuck in. they're making a big mistake, too bad. what i take away from that is he's just left in one week's time, president obama has left the middle east. >> kt mcfarland, thank you very much. i've been corrected on the time of the president's average answer was not 10 minutes, his answer was 9:56. i apologize. he did praise the pope, who else to praise but the pope. typical papal response to any question in any language is about one minute it could be 56 seconds, but about one minute. in other words, the pope can answer a question in one-tenth
of the time of the president of the united states. not that there's a comparison. i only pointed out, because president did praise the pope. well the pope, it is what it is. we'll see. hello, i'm dr. greg forbes, along with kimberly guilfoyle. juan williams, eric bolling and our prom date with an electroel dana, "the five." president obama said the mass shootings seemed routine. it's true but what if we actually treated such crimes that way? routinely, not incidents that drown out world events. perhaps then we would no longer create an appealing path for a cop incat creeps. it's the contagion of infamy. shooters find