tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News October 28, 2015 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT
all right. i'm watching this coverage of this blimp that's been running around loose and now reportedly down. i'm thinking to myself, everywhere i look as i switch around, everywhere i look, people are talking about what a waste of $1.4 billion. a graphic image of waste in washington. i'm thinking to myself, it happens now and then, we spend billions on solar credits, on companies that go bust. we spend over $700 billion on a financial rescue package that didn't measure up. we spent trillions of dollars on food programs that still leave millions of kids starving.
we have spent similarly trillions on a war on poverty and the same percentage of americans are impoverished. andcessing on a loose blimp and saying that is bad case of federal waste? picture a thousand of those blimps on domestic initiatives that never panned out. maybe that's the problem. maybe we should repackage them as defense department blimps. maybe then, maybe then this waste in washington which did not get addressed, by the way, with the two-year budget deal, we get more attention. but it takes a blimp to bring that to our attention. and i'm not talking about the guy who is telling you. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. and that happens sometimes. sometimes weird stuff like that gets me switching as i switch around. what a waste. what a waste. what a waste of money. i'm thinking, that's just a rounding era on a rounding era on. all the money we waste.
and you wonder why people raise questions about budget deals that are not really deals or punting on debt that doesn't do anything to address our debt. you wonder why people just sort of shrug their shoulders and say we're a joke. who cares. look at this. we heard from the federal reserve today that no hike in rates. in fact, they seem to be telegraphing they're not about to be hiking rates. the dow is up about 200 points. defense stocks, they did okay as well. but i just want you to think of that as we continue, and we will give you updates on this blimp that's now down on the 30,000 people who are out of power. that's well and good and should be reported and will be reported. but i want you to think about that. i want you to think about the next time we see a mainstream media's obsession with certain kinds of wastes. not all kinds of wastes. and why when you can package it around a blimp it just makes it so much easier to sell,
especially if it has a defense department established stamp on it. but i digress. now to that big deal in washington and the big move closer for one paul ryan to be the next speaker of the house. mike with the latest on both. hey, michael. >> neil, busy afternoon here on capitol hill. supporters of that bipartisan budget package received some good news from the nonpartisan congressional budget office saying that the $80 billion increase split between defense and domestic spending is fully paid for by other cuts. let's take a live look at the house floor where lawmakers are debating that budget package that would provide two years of budget certainty. it would also raise the government's bor roying authority, the debt limit through march 2017. also this afternoon, house republicans nominated paul ryan to be the next speaker. ryan earned 200 votes. florida's daniel webster, 43 votes. majority leader kevin mccarthy, one vote. and tennessee congresswoman marsha blackburn, one vote.
ryan talked about change going forward. >> our party has lost its vision and we're going the replace it with a vision. we believe that the country's on the wrong track. we think the country's headed in the wrong direction, and we have an obligation here in the peoples house to do the peoples business, to give this country a better way forward. >> the runner-up in this speaker race, florida's daniel webster, sounded like he had made an impact but also sounded like he is ready to move on. >> talked to the members and see -- i don't really want them to nominate me. >> why not? >> because i think we've got -- this is done. it's 200 to 43. let's head forward to see what we can do. >> paul ryan needs 218 votes tomorrow morning on the house floor. and then we will have a new speaker of the house. first things first. the house needs to vote on this budget package sometime later this afternoon. neil? >> all right.
thank you very much, michael. part of that budget package calls for another $80 billion or so in spending over the next couple of years, just to grease the skids past the election. $80 billion, about, about 80 of those blimps. about 80 of those blimps. so obsessing on a blimp and it should be. it could have been very bad. the thing is down. but we're talking about a budget agreement now, it's about 80 of those puppies. and no insane vote. all right. republican ohio congressman jim jordan. i'm telling you, perspective is everything. look, i'm all for making sure our blimps are tethered or whatever. but, man, oh, man, the wide spread media obsession over this. it's a gripping story. but i always wondered if we could -- if we could encapsulate our wasteful programs and fly them like an untethered blimp maybe that could get the
mainstream media's attention because that's what it takes to remind people about wastes. what do you think? >> well, remember, neil, it's not just 80 of those blimps. that's just the increase. it's still trillions of dollars of new spending. >> absolutely. it doesn't appear addressed in this latest deal or maybe on i'm missing something. >> well, no, look, this latest deal is terrible. we're voting against it. several of us has voted against the rule that would bring this bill to the floor. so, yeah, it's a bad deal. trillion and a half in new borrowing authority. 80 billion in new spending. cbo, what it says its offset. remember, this is the way walk speaks. offset but offset in years eight, nine, ten. spin the money now over the next two years, pay for it in years eight, nine, and ten. most families don't get to operate that way. certainly the federal government shouldn't operate that way, particularly when you have now what's approaching $20 trillion national debt. so that's why this bill is a bad package. and why a number of us are going to be voting against it
tomorrow. >> all right. now, the commercial budget office ruled said that it does what it's supposed to do. i didn't understand what it meant. not that it was revenue neutral but offset. but the savings from what i understand are in future years. >> of course. >> which means there are future blimps of savings that they're envisioning that aren't there. >> yeah. exactly. and, oh, yeah, remember, we just did this two years ago where we increased the discretionary spending levels but we said we're going the offset it with certain cuts in the future. now we've already changed that and reupped that. that's the problem. and that's what we were sent here to stop. now, look, going forward, this place has got to change. the leadership has got to change. we know it's going to change. we do believe that with paul ryan as speaker we have a much better chance of doing what we told the voters we're going the do. and we're going to look forward to fighting for those things and making the changes we're supposed to make. >> now, why did he get only 200 votes? i say only, he's going to need
218. maybe they materialize tomorrow. are some of your colleagues and members just not buying that he's your savior? >> no, he's going the bet plenty of votes tomorrow. the house freedom caucus just said we would said we would do. we endorsed mr. webster in the conference vote so he received our vote in the conference vote but we also said after the conference vote we're going support paul on the floor and you're doing to see the vast majority of hfc members support paul on the floor. >> has webster is it, congressman? has he now backed out? >> i haven't talked to dan about that since we just had the vote a little while ago, about an hour ago, i think. i have not talked to him but i'm sure i'll talk to him on the floor tonight when we have -- when we're back voting on the floor of the house. >> congressman, thank you very much for joining us. it. >> you bet. i want to keep this in some perspective, folks, not to belabor this but because i'm the math nerd and the geek here. i want to focus on that. i want to focus on that, $1.4
billion, how it became untethered, waste is waste. pursue how the heck that happened. but no questions at all about school lunch programs that we're in billions over budget, about other domestic initiatives that ran billions over budget. they are good programs and shouldn't give good money after bad to keep supporting those programs. is there anything that has to do with the fact that it's defense and defense waste is real just like any other waste is real. one blimp. $1.4 billion. a fraction of all the money that is wasted. is eight metaphor for bigger spending, for bigger wastes? probably. but i want you to focus on an obsession over a runaway blimp and no one, no one saying boo about runaway spending that is hundreds of times that blimp because that blimp is down and grounded and secure. our spending, not so much. stick around. across america, people like basketball hall of famer
for a while, i took a pill to lower my blood sugar. but it didn't get me to my goal. so i asked my doctor about victoza®. he said victoza® works differently than pills. and comes in a pen. victoza® is proven to lower blood sugar and a1c. it's taken once a day, any time. victoza® is not for weight loss, but it may help you lose some weight. victoza® is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes... ...and should not be used in people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. victoza® has not been studied with mealtime insulin. victoza® is not insulin. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer... ...multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to... ...victoza® or any of its ingredients. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction... ...may include itching, rash, or difficulty breathing.
tell your doctor... ...if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. serious side effects may happen in people who take victoza®... ...including inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis). stop taking victoza®... ...and call your doctor right away if you have signs of pancreatitis such as severe pain that will not go away in your abdomen or from your abdomen to your back... ...with or without vomiting. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take... ...and if you have any medical conditions. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or... ...insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are headache, nausea... ...diarrhea, and vomiting. side effects can lead to dehydration... ...which may cause kidney problems. if your pill isn't giving you... ...the control you need... ...ask your doctor about non-insulin victoza®. it's covered by most health plans.
do you remember the show "columbo" peter falk, that character? i'm like a heavier version of him. i hear figures and they just don't jive with me. like that 1.4, $1.4 billion figure for this blimp that was unmoored and then they moored it and now it's tethered, safe and secure after zooming power for 0,000 folks in the pennsylvania area. it didn't make sense something like that would cast $1.4 billion. i know this is the military but i also know this entire program was about $2.7 billion and it would have included -- i don't know if that was allocated to all 80 blimps. but at best you might be looking at something in the $50 million range. now, that is hardly cheap. that's a blimp. that's a big blimp. i am just saying though that no one questions that, no one questions the cost, take it at face value. and it becomes untethered. and, man, when it becomes untethered, that's a big deal.
don't get me wrong. no one talks about untethered spending in a host of other areas. an agreement that keeps the wastes going, that keeps domestic initiative, military initiatives unchecked. no one talks about that. here's my idea, america. answer to you if you think it's a bad idea, let bill o'reilly know. why don't we put all federal programs in a blimp. they'll get the attention because they're automatically untethered. a good many of them are never priced out. no one checks the sticker on it. but if they become untethered or floating around in the sky you have an image of a metaphor, work with me, america. all right. i mention this because this whole budget deal and echk that's going on, lunacy on the hill. but there are some voices of reason out there including this congresswoman, the democrat from the fine state of hawaii. i know you don't want to show biases, your military career notwithstanding, your background. i think we obsess too much over an errant blimp and i just think
if we applied the same rigor to errant spending period we would be off to the races. curious what your thoughts are. >> that i can agree with you on, neil. aloha, it's good to talk to you. i can think of another example of money that's been wasted. the $500 million that was spent on this failed mission in syria to so-called train and equip moderate syrian forces. not only was it a waste because they only actually ended up putting five fighters on to the battlefield but it goes towards this bigger issues and bigger problem of the fact that we need to stop this illegal counterproductive war to overthrow the syrian government of assad and focus our resources, focus our taxpayer dollars and our military efforts on actually defeating our enemy, on defeating isis, al qaeda. >> but we don't. we pour good money after bad. i want the numbers involved in that, congresswoman, to your point. seemed like a very big number,
half a billion dollars for very few men and women. now we get word that iran troops numbering upwards of 2,000 are going to be joining the fight if half of them are already there already helping russia. i'm thinking, that's a classic case of mispriorities. but what is going on here and what do we do to fix it? >> the answer of what we need to do to fix it i think is very simple. again, we stop this counterproductive effort, this counterproductive war to overthrow the syrian government of assad and we focus on defeating our enemy. we got highly trained special forces, the strongest, best warriors in the world, who have been and can continue to work with the ground fighters on the ground, the kurds, the sunni tribal -- sunni tribes and others who have shown their effectiveness in fighting against isis. here's the problem with what i see going on right now with this focused united states has on overthrowing this syrian government of assad. they're actually working hand in hand towards the same objective
that these islamic extremist groups are trying to accomplish. they're trying to overthrow the syrian government of assad to take over, put in place islamic caliphate and present a greater threat to the people on the ground there as well as rest of the world. that makes absolutely no sense to me. yet another reason why we should stop it and focus on defeating our enemy. >> but that means more boots on the ground, doesn't it? >> this is kind of a misnomer to say boots on the ground. >> more than what we've got now. more people, more weaponry, more of a lot of stuff because the russian's guns are ablazing and we're not. >> well, what this comes down to is what strategy do we need to put in place to defeat our enemy. we've got highly trained special forces who can quickly deploy in and out which is something i've long advocated for, who can work very effectively with these forces on the ground. the kurds in iraq and in syria. the sunni tribes and others who can take this fight to the enemy, who can hold territory
there, and, yes, we should be applying more towards equipping these fighters with heavy weapons, with what they need to actually get these decisive victories over isis and defeat them once and for all. >> congresswoman, while i have you here speaking of rescue missions and all this, this isis raid on this compound to free all of those isis hostages and a brave american soldier died. did he die in combat because we're not using those words? >> yes. the simple answer is yes. there is -- there's no other way around it. our special forces went in, rescued these kurdish fighters from our enemy. and again, this is where my focus is. we've got brave warriors who've committed their lives to serving our country, to defeating our nation's enemies. we've got to honor them, honor their service, provide the support they need, have an effective strategy to accomplish our mission. and make sure that we remember them when they actually come
home, that we honor their service and take care of our veterans. >> congresswoman, always a pleasure having you. thank you very much. >> thanks, neil. aloha. >> fine congresswoman from the fine i stastate of hawaii. all right. we're going tv the latest on this blimp. it's down. it's fine. in case you're worried about it though, and government waste and all that, hundreds of times more being wasted and you don't even know it on a budget accord that they're signing and sealing and delivering with barely a whimper. wow. ♪
hi, tom. how's the college visit? does it make the short list? yeah, i'm afraid so. it's okay. this is what we've been planning for. knowing our clients personally is why edward jones is the big company that doesn't act that way. what's happening here... is not normal, it's extraordinary. because there is no stop in us. or you. only go.
what has happened to our party? what has happened to the conservative movement? >> i got a lot of really cool things that i could do other than sit around being miserable listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. that is a joke. elect trump if you want that. >> all right. well, down and out in the polls and now just out and out loaded for bear. we'll see tonight in the big debate but the national review says something there is watching. they are taking the gloves off,
jillian. i'm wonder how bad this gets, how angry they get. what do you think? >> i think there's huge incentive for them to do it but not only because trump has run such a negative campaign but also because this election is really showing divides within the republican party. there's big pressure on the republican candidates to differentiate themselves and to though themselves as antiestablishment. so i think, you know, this kind of leads to attack ads inherently. >> jamie, where is this going though because, you know, normally when it's attack on donald trump reresponds quite aggressively baz last time he was here. you know, they come at him with a pea shooter and he comes at them with a bazooka. usually they regret it in the polls. is there any fear of ben carson mixing it up with him? >> well, that is the question. will ben carson and donald trump go after each other? obviously donald trump has been going after ben carson not in a counter puncher way as he likes to say he usually does but upset because ben carson is topping in
iowa. we just saw ben carson here in the spin room. he came and talked to some reporters here. he said he's just going to be himself. he's not planning to do manufactured confrontations with donald trump. if you remember in the last debate when they had a question of vaccinations ben carson backed off and kind of didn't use his medical background to shoot trump down on vaccinations and let him go. we'll see if he's going to take the gloves off in this fight. doesn't seem really in mispersonality to do so. >> jillian, back to so-called establishment players. jeb bush in there, marco rubio, some of these established candidates, established senator or former senators or governor christie for that matter. they have got to position themselves a little bit more loudly, probably more boldly as alternatives to the ben carsons and the donald trumps assuming they hope probably either or both implodes, right? >> yeah, i think so. i think they're going to come at it swinging. definitely at each other. some of the most memorable moments of the debate so far
have been when candidates pit off against each other. i think what works well as we're seeing right now is when candidates attack each other on ideas, on content. you definitely see donald trump sort of negativity potentially backfiring. and i think for candidates like carly fiorina she's used that to an advantage to point out significant policy flaws. ben carson is in a unique position though because civility is his brand right now. that is what is appealing about him. he has less potential to use attack ads and aggressive rhetoric than many of the other candidates. >> yam jamie, obviously the mor money you're running out of in the coffers the more desperate you get. it could get to be crazy town tonight, too, right? i mean, it's like a lot of hail mary passes being thrown. who throws the most? >> well, i think that we saw in the beginning with a clips of john kasich and jeb bush, a dichotomy there. i think we saw plan
for righteous rage. that's going to be his act. he's going to say everyone has gone crazy. i'm the moderate guy. i know what to do. i know how to run government. with jeb bush we saw someone pouting and angry that he was once on top of the polls and don't understand how he got to this position. he's got to shape up for this debate and show that he's a president in waiting. not someone who is just bitter and angry that he's been beaten down by donald trump. >> you know, they have to watch, too, jillian, their attitude or the way they appear to the public. i can understand given a rough couple of weeks for jeb bush that he gets frustrated an says stuff like i don't know why i'm run for this job, i could be doing better things. i know that wasn't his intent but they've got watch that, right? >> yeah, they definitely do. still, i expect this to be a pretty scrappy debate. i certainly can't wait to watch it. and i think on top of that, you know, these are candidates that are trying to differentiate themselves in a very packed field. one of the ways you do that is by carefully crafted negativity. we may not remember your complex policy point but we're sure
going to remember your spicy zinger. >> thank you both very, very much. we have been trying to crunch numbers on this blimp that was down but we know the numbers have gone down. i'm the resident nerd here. as soon as i heard the 1.4 to $1.5 billion figure, i started saying, wait a minute, that's just one blimp and it's untethered and everyone is obviously afraid that we wasted a lot of money but we did. it's not $1.4 billion. if $2.7 billion program for which there were at least 80 blimps. assuming not all 80 were covered, it works out to 30 to 35 million bucks a blimp which means it's still a huge waste of money but it isn't $1.5 millibi. my only question is will anyone in the media correct that. you totalled your brand new car.
nobody's hurt,but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do, drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. new car replacement is just one of the features that come standard with a base liberty mutual policy. and for drivers with accident forgiveness,rates won't go up due to your first accident. learn more by calling switch to liberty mutual and you can save up to $509. for a free quote today,call liberty mutual insurance at
you're looking life in jamaica, queens, new york. new york police chief bill bratton speaking at the funeral for that new york police officer randolph holder gunned down last weekend just doing his job. this is the same funeral, the same event where we were told that we were going to hear from the reverend al sharpton speak on behalf of the family. family said that was never considered. bottom line, al sharpton is not
speaking there but it occurs at the same time the fbi director was doubling down on earlier comments he had made that all of these videos of attacks on minorities and the like have sort of led to a sort of a pullback on the part of officers to deal with crime and maybe that is why we're seeing a rise in these types of incidents. former fbi assistant director ron says regardless, none of this helps. very good to have you, ron. what do you make of this? he's not backing down from those comments. >> no, he's not, neil. you used exactly the right word, he said maybe. so here we have what is essentially the top federal law enforcement official in the country seeing this rise of violent crime and homicide in half of our biggest cities, including the one he spoke in over the weekend, chicago. and he is concerned about what is driving that crime after 25 years of violent crime dropping across the country. and he's asking questions and he is struggling to understand why.
>> now, i remember, ron, in the summer after ferguson and everything else there was a clear, a clear reticent in the part of the police officers across the nation, new york as well, some of the guys would tell me, pull me aside as i was getting out tft building, we don't want to be tar gets ourselves and we know if we try to intervene someone is going to come down hard on us, either shoot us or drag us into court. i can understand that. i thought we had overcome a lot of the anger. certainly from the law enforcement community. i remember first when they turned their back on mayor de blasio at a policeman's funeral. but apparently that is not the case. there's still a lot of anger there and still a lot of concern on the part of law enforcement about what they should do, how far they should go. how bad is this getting? >> right. so the president -- i'm sorry, the director commented on that very concern. he said he's had private
conversations with police chiefs and with police officers who are suggesting that is exactly what's going on. i had coffee with a seasoned chicago officer yesterday and he said that's exactly what's going on. so you have this hypothesis by jim comey that suggests maybe this youtube effect is in play and that police officers are not engaging in proactive policing. and this speech that he gave twice, i heard the second one in person, has a lot of layers to it. and in ways jim comey is lamenting a couple of things. one, the lack of current and accurate data to tell him what's going on. two, if his youtube effect hypothesis may be true, he la meants the fact that us aers are not getting out of their cars when they need to and he's lamenting the plight of urban poor trapped in bad neighborhoods who are crime ridden who don't have the means to escape.
that is, frankly, as president referred to it as a political agenda, in his speech yesterday, if that's jim comey's plit cale jend da i think comey is on the mark. it's a pretty good agenda to have. >> the same media political agenda we're perfectly fine when he was challenging president bush. ron, one last thing, al sharpton not there, not speaking. what do you think of that? >> al sharpton is a lightning rod. he is a lightning rod to police. al sharpton is a stranger to the truth in a lot of these encounters with the police and citizens. and he's inflammatory. so his presence at a police funeral i think would insult tens of thousands of cops who are probably standing with their badges draped in a black sackcloth. >> wow. ron, you're a great guest. appreciate you always speaking your mind. ron hosko. do you ever wonder if we had another bank meltdown, in other
words, your bank, citi bank, bank of america, were on the brink, going down, all that depositor, maybe all of your cash, would we rescue it? the idea behind the financial loss now is now we don't need to. hillary clinton just said she would let one rip. and she ripped about it on stephen colbert. do you think she means that? and if she does, are you word rid about that? after this. is never easy. doing your own thing, making your own way can be pretty, well, bold. rickie fowler is redefining what it means to be a golfer. quicken loans is doing the same for mortgages. quicken loans. home buy. refi. power. official mortgage sponsor
if you're president. >> yes. >> and -- and the banks are failing, do we let them fail this time? >> yes, yes. >> we let them fail this time? >> yes, yes, yes. >> wow. >> yes. first of all, under dodd frank that is what will happen. they have to know, their shareholders have to know that, yes, they will fail. and if they're too big to fail, then under my plan and others that have been proposed, they may have to be broken up.
>> all right. i like that she got applaud because a lot of thoseeople are plauding that possibly could happen to him. all of a sudden their bank goes under and the president i guess in this case would let that happen. we have laws in place as she was trying to refer that that would not happen, that we would quickly be dismantling them and they would essentially have a living will, taken self apart and everyone would survive. but charlie was there for the bank bailout and conditions in a free-fa free-fall. let's say cooler heads and rational discussions don't prevail. sarah westwood here as well. charlie, what do you think about what she just said? >> no, no, no, no. >> is she british all of a sudden? >> no, hillary, no. on the dodd frank, you don't have to let a bank fail. the chances are letting any of these big banks fail are almost nil because it would implode the entire financial system as would have done in 2008. the other thing i should point out is if she wants to let banks fail she should have said that
before she cashed personal checks from the banks that goldman sachs which would have failed gave her for speeches and many of these other players. i just find it very interesting that after she cashes those personal checks, which made her a millionaire, many times over, she is now calling for doing her best impression of bernie sanders and saying she would let them fail. let's be clear here. this is empty rhetoric. anybody who knows dodd frank knows the law really allows them not to fail. >> but one of the things that i think is missed in that point, they say history never quite repeats itself the same way twice but it does a ring a lot the same. if a bank were on the brink, with the republican president or democratic president, same situation, and you didn't have time to do all the things that this brilliant financial law supposedly did, would they really let it go? >> that's just so unlikely. i mean, the results would be catastrophic. here wall street reform has always been a tricky area for
hillary clinton because -- >> so you don't think she meant that tnd people applauding what she said about that didn't seem to realize that she would be sticking the finger to them. >> right. well, she's trying to blur the line between what bernie sanders has said, which is that he would go ahead and break up the big banks now to mitigate the risk of them ever failing to what hillary clinton said, which is that she mighting consider reorganizing the big banks under a certain set of unlikely circumstances. >> let's be really clear why we have big banks. and she should go and talk to her husband about this and larry summers and all her husband's friends in the financial industry which went out there and created a monstrosity of bad regulations including getting rid of glass steagal which allowed the existence of citigroup and many copycat firms which caused all of these other banks -- >> traditional banking, investment banking. >> and it's subsidize bid the federal government. >> do you think it could happen again? >> yes. we have less banks, bigger
banks. >> sarah, what do you think? >> well, her husband that repealed glass steagal, progressives like bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, recalls it. there's a reason she hasn't been an advocate for reinstating it but she says she wants to tax banks based on their exposure to risk but not stop that risk from ache r taking place in the first place. that's something that differentiates her from progressives. >> by the way, her husband, i mean, think about how outrageous this is. she's basically saying all the regulation, deregulation that her husband enacted was bad. i mean, so much bill clinton, what do you think of your wife's -- >> are you doing to vote for her? >> did he have a lobotomy? >> i don't know how you made her british. >> no, no, no. >> no, no, no. >> stuart varney. >> he's from brooklyn. >> yes. i appreciate that. we've been obsessing a lot about this blimp, right? and a lot of attention about how
much it costs. turns it it's probably not the $1.4 billion, $1.5 billion first mentioned. maybe around $30 million or so. does it occur to you that there's a great deal of focus and flipping around the mainstream media to say this is a military boondoggle and this is the same media that if i were to package a number of food programs and poverty programs that have never worked, school lunch programs where the kids pass up the food all together and don't get it at all, as a blimp, as a blimp it would be covered. not as a blimp, zero coverage. and you think i'm upset? you should hear john mccain. after this.oh n.. (under his breath) hey man! hey peter. (unenthusiastic) oh... ha ha ha! joanne? is that you? it's me... you don't look a day over 70. am i right? jingle jingle. if you're peter pan, you stay young forever. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. ♪ you make me feel so young... it's what you do. ♪ you make me feel
amp example of government waste. one liberal website, pisses away money like no one would believe. i believe john mccain night might slightly disagree. whatever happened here i don't see the same rage senator as other wasteful programs. they just lump this in and say this is great. it's military. we can have at it. what do you think? >> i think we obviously have to have significant reforms in the way we acquire our weapons systems. there have been cost overruns that have been unacceptable. we passed legislation that would make significant progress. and the president chose to veto that bill. now, we have a budget agreement. so let's hope that he doesn't but he obviously had the budgetary issues as a higher priority than the men and women in the military. >> now, you know, you hear from the other side, senator, say, well, the military gets a sum, well protected in the budget. with this two-year budget
agreement, you know, military is going to get more money on defense are going to get more money. so senator mccain should quit whining. what do you say? >> well, i think we do not give the department of defense any certainty as we go from we lurc to year. i think we are making progress and if you look at 2009 when barack obama came into office. we need a lot more money for defense, thanks to a failed feckless foreign policy which has put us in greater danger than we've been in since the end of world war ii. >> your democratic colleague in the house, the governor from the fine state of hawaii was mentioning how, how prickly we are when we talk about whether rescuing isis captives is a combat mission when a soldier dies and going through linguistic hoops to avoid that phrase and the way we're handling syria.
where we commit more troops or operations, what are they going to do. that it's half-hearted. i think i've got the gist of her comments right. what do you think of that? >> i think she's exactly right. secretary ash carter's performance and that of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff would have been comical if it hadn't been so sad. because they really have no strategy, no plan. they have some incrementalician that we call mission creep. and they also -- >> what are they afraid of? they have afraid, they don't want to go your route. lindsey graham said he wants to commit a lot of boots on the ground and the region. name your crisis. boots on the ground active support, many more weaponry. and they don't want to go that route what do you say? >> well i say we want about 10,000 boots on the ground. we want to be able to have a strategy to defeat isis and
bashar al assad. i think by any objective observer we are not succeeding and this is a direct threat to the united states of america. so if anybody believes that the present approach, there's no strategy, but the present approach is working, then they haven't been paying attention. could i just mention one additional point? hillary clinton said that, that the problems in the veterans administration were not as serious as republicans make it out. and republicans are making a political issue. for the first time now, the veterans issue, hillary clinton has made a political issue. we have been working in a bipartisan basis, passing legislation, trying to pass legislation to fix it and when she says that the problem isn't as bad as we're painting it out to be, no, it's worse. and so she doesn't understand the veterans, she doesn't understand what they need and she is politicizing the issue. shame on her. >> she tried to dial it back a little bit today. senator, to your point, maybe
too little, too late. i want to switch gears, there is a debate tonight as you know and we're getting signs of frustration out of i guess establishment candidates for want of a better word, candidate, john kasich expressing frustration, almost like how coy be losing to these guys, the ben carsons and donald trumps. i heard a similar angst out of lindsey graham, this frustration with not getting their message through. jeb bush saying much the same. are they just at the point of wit's end, should they be screaming about this tonight? how would you advise them? >> i would advise them to put one foot ahead of the other and know that in new hampshire, at least 70% of the people have not made up their minds and they won't until about a week before february 7th. >> for some of them, senator, the clock is running and the money -- you more than anyone, were you down for the count, they thought you were gone. you came back with pennies in your pocket to emerge victorious
from new hampshire and on to the nomination. that was then. these guys are under a much stricter time limit with their donors. what do you say? >> i share their frustration in this respect. when someone says they're going to build a wall and make the mexicans pay for it and deport 11 million people, including children that were born here. the american people deserve do know how that's going to happen. when a presidential candidate says well we could have gotten bin laden back if we would have just declared energy independence. when it a candidate for the president of the united states says well let's let isis and syria fight it out and we'll take their oil. i think the american people deserve some description as to exactly how you do that. rather than just say, that's going to happen. that's where if i were running, thank god i'm not. but if i were running, i would say look those questions deserve to be answered. how do you do these things that you say in such broad-brush terms?
>> i think that part of you itches to be heard. [ laughter ] >> that's the part of you that wants to be at that debate. >> the old story about the horse that used to draw the milk wagon. showed up out of retirement. ready to pull the wagon again. >> senator, a real pleasure and thank you for your service to this country. senator john mccain in washington, more on that issue of wasting money, no matter where you put it. so why does the media focus on one part of it, after this. [ female announcer ] if you don't think "i've still got it"
when you think aarp, then you don't know "aarp." life reimagined gives you tools and support to get the career you'll love. find more real possibilities at aarp.org/possibilities. to get the career you'll love. iflike i love shrimp, come to red lobster's endless shrimp... ...for as much as you want, any way you want it... sweet, buttery, and creamy. like new pineapple habanero coconut shrimp bites...
i found a better deal on prescriptions. we found lower co-pays... ...and a free wellness visit. new plan...same doctor. i'm happy. it's medicare open enrollment. have you compared plans yet? it's easy at medicare.gov. or you can call 1-800-medicare. medicare open enrollment. you'll never know unless you go. i did it. you can too. ♪ i've been talking about spending and wasting money. obsessing on this blimp thing today, but for the many of the reasons many in the media have been. our focus on one element of waste went awry. it might be a few million to $30
million. it doesn't matter the cost, it matters the obsession that we assign to this on a day we had a two-year budget deal, a two-year budget deal that doesn't raise the debt ceiling as much as it suspends the debt ceiling. i want to you think about that. we suspended the debt ceiling. what that means is that if you had a visa credit card with a $25,000 credit limit, you could still spend over $25,000. now the folks at visa aren't going to pull your card they're just going to look the other way. we are looking the other way. we have suggestion spended any hope of sanity on our spending. thinking that securing a two-year agreement that might avoid a government shutdown that we have somehow shown discipline, somehow shown reason. when the fact of the matter is we have busted all caps, we are spending more money than ever before. we will continue doing so for two years with the promise, the promise, that in two years, then we'll get serious.
my friends, while we're on the issue of blimps, i have made such promises when it comes to diets. hope springs eternal for goals. let's just say -- still a blimp. and a blimp is down. our thoughts and prayers are with the blimp. i'm greg gutfeld, along with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, eric bolling and she eats lady bugs on toast, dana perino. "the five." tonight's debate, the economy. meaning stuff the left want you to know nothing about. that way they can demand minimum wage hikes without saying where the cash comes from or that people only take jobs if they're worth it or that entry level is called entry level so you don't camp there. it's also so peek keep thinking that free stuff is free. sorry, bernie, if education is dpree, why not the goodies gained from it? nothing free