tv Forbes on FOX FOX Business September 21, 2014 9:00am-9:31am EDT
>> american telegraph, solid company. pays excellent dividends. >> meanwhile, a run-up in the market again, charles, you buying. >> yeah. didn't like the way it closed friday. it's good. >> we shall see. stick with fox. a vortex on americans to pay for our war on isis. one democratic lawmaker preparing a bill to do exactly that. but some here say a war tax would amount to a declaration of war on our still struggling economy. are they right? hi, everybody. welcome to "forbes on fox." let's go in focus with steeves forbes, elizabeth macdonald, rig younger and steve, what do you think about the war tax? >> once a restaurant, a slogan, too much is everybody inner enough. political piggies in washington always finding an excuse to put more taxes on the american team. defense spending a proportion of our economy not out of line given our number since world war
ii and in terms of the spending now, most is domestic spending. they just want another excuse to pick the pockets of the american people. which will hurt the economy, which will hurt our standard of living and weaken our ability to fight necessarily conflicts and wars overseas. >> rick unger, before we go further, we understand the biggest cost of all in all of the conflicts that we've fought and are fighting, human lives. we've lost a lot of human lives, suffering, a lot of injured service people as well, but the costs are already stacking up. the costs escalate so quickly since mid-june, this war against isis between mid-june and august 29th, it's cost $562 million. that is a huge cost. this is the cost of the war on terror in general, but already the cost against isis is mounting up. how do we pay for it? >> first of all, david, i'm pleased you made the point you made. all too easy to forget we're talking about real people in those situations. glad you did it.
look, this is a tricky situation. wars cost money. if the nation agrees this is a war that has to be fought it's got to be paid for. i don't want to make the same mistake we made back in the early 2000s when we went to war and spent money we didn't have. so there's two choices. cut the budget, and use that money to spend it on war. you can issue a war tax which is what the congressman offered. my suggestion would be, a little of both so that every american, no the just one-half or the other, picks up and sacrifices for this effort. >> by the way, there is a third option for raising revenue. sell bonds. we did that in world war ii. people really believe in -- >> it's not a tax. it's a choice that individuals have, whether or not they want to buy into this or not. >> i'm against that and against the war tax. here's why. we should get our allies to pony up. u.s. has been going it alone way too long, u.s. taxpayers footing the bill. europe is historically spending
less on their defense, spending more on public spending for pensions and national health care, and that's not fair to the u.s. we did it in the gulf war, one and two, david, when germany, japan, saudi arabia and the gulf states paid more into those wars. the allies need to step up. it is unfair that the u.s. taxpayer gets hit time and again for this. >> john, what would a war tax do to the economy? >> that's the problem. it's a compelling idea at first glaps because you want to make it difficult as possible to go to war and you want everyone to think hard about it, but it would be a terrible idea because the last thing you want to do when committing troops to battle is to weaken your economy. it's something that would embolden the enemy and at the same time reduce the amount of resources we could commit to the battle. so it's an interesting idea but it's a terrible path to go at this point. really, at any point. >> by the way, mike, the idea comes from charlie rangel. i'm not so sure he wants this war against isis. this may be a poison pill he's putting in there to prevent a war, but what do you think about
it? >> i think thatö congressman rangel should look at what jfk did. jfk actually cut taxes during the early stages of the vietnam war and did not raise them. the economy after the war came out in very good shape. so i don't think we need to raise taxes. i think the detriment to the economy as others have pointed out would be great, and in terms it of the actual cost of fighting isis, it's likely to be much closer to something like the vietnam war than, say, world war ii where there were massive tax increases. the other thing to quickly point out is sips world war ii, we had a big tax increase this country is much more heavily taxened and savings already much lower. >> rich, mike brings up jfk. i want to bring up ronald reagan. of course, he low ared tax rates tremendously during his term. he also increased defense spending tremendously. so you can do both. right? you can lower tax rates,ened increase defense spending? >> well, he did, david, and the
asset value of the united states under reagan's leadership even though he added to the federal debt went up far, far, far more than the addition of the federal debt. so it was a net win all around, and the soviet union collapsed. look at national defense is the only mandatory thing that the federal government should do as described by the constitution. in article 4, section 4. now, the key word is invasion. that's supposed to be the trigger, and as isis invaded us, they've certainly made their intentions clear. i don't think we should wait around. if you're going to put -- going to put national government functions up for a separate tax, it should be the non-mandatory things like entitlements, not the one mandatory thing, national defense. >> and, steve, i think charlie rangel does have it backwards. i mean, entirely backwards. yes, we need a stronger defense. by the way, we've been spending less on defense over the past several year, but perhaps the way to get it is by
strengthening our economy and the way to do that is loweringñ tax rates not raising them. >> absolutely right and then you have the resources to fight it. how we won the cold war in the 1980s. the soviet union, their economy went down. ours is getting stronger. far ahead in tech knoll. thanks to the reforms reagan put in, unleashed that entrepreneurial drive and the world saw. we were going up, soviet union collapsing and indeed it did. strength begets more strength and the best way to fight against dictators is have having a strong entrepreneurial economy. >> rick, i don't want to try to get too much in ahead of these nuts, these terrorists fighting for isis, the fact is the world economy slowed downalities bit, they have increased membership. may be a lot of disgruntled people going to them because they're so down on their luck. maybe the thing to do to fight isis in part is strengthen our economy, not weaken it by a tax hike? >> that's something you can speculate about. a might about bit of a stretch i
fear. interesting, some of the things i heard. david, you suggested bonds. that was actual lie my first thought. why don't we go back to the days of the war bond? >> the world war ii war bonds. >> it's actually alone and you'd be increasing national debt. respond to mike. when jfk was still with us, the vietnam war had yet to really have an impact on our economy. those days would come. >> but, listen, jfk had high taxes to pay for world war ii. that's what jfk was contending with. let's be real. let's be real. we have nato where less than, the majority of ebb ins are spending less than 2% of their gdp on defense. not fair. european parters in, workers, getting to retire early, work less than the u.s. taxpayer. stop having the u.s. taxpayer hit up time and again to pay for wars, unfinanced wars. i get it. a good point growing the economy, david, worldwide push back on terrorism. why not a trade war instead
where you drop the barriers to trade and have really powerful alliances? that could stop future conflicts as well and push aside, once we vanquish isis, bring peace. >> what about the idea, though, of sharing sacrifice? charlie rangel has been talking about that for a long time and frankly some is compelling. sacrifice is not shared equally in the country. should it be? >> well, i like it in the sense of what liz ben says, have allies fund part of this. one thing made, a bond is a tax. a dollar is a dollar no matter where you take it from. if we're going to do this and it would be ill-advised, cut spending elsewhere as rich said, these we can say national defense is a constitutional purpose, the government cuts spending elsewhere. don't raise bonds and weaken the economy that way. it's every bit as much as a tax add -- >> compulsory, a bond something people choose to buy or not. correct? >> if you have a low tax rate
regime in the seths of monetary policy you have a stronger economy and can indeed take on more debt as we've seen throughout history. strong economy, you can take on more debt for the things that you need to do. by the way, on u.s. weakness, in the 1930s and 1970s when we were seen as a weak nation, bad forces rose up. a strengthened economy has that intangible very real asset in the world when people see strength they respond to it. >> that's the way to prevent wars. have a strong defense. thank you very much. from the war on isis to our war on poverty. prove that it failed. despite spending trillions of your tax dollars to try to conquer it. first, a new war being waged on coal. global warms activists flooding into new york for a huge rally tomorrow after a huge legal victory last week. why some here fear this could freeze out jobs and hike up heating bills. when fixed income experts
work with equity experts who work with regional experts who work with portfolio management experts that's when expertise happens. mfs. because there is no expertise without collaboration. you know, if you play football foryou're gonna learn toid, deal with alot of pain. but it is nothing like the pain that shingles causes. man when i got shingles it was something awful. it was like being blindsided by you don't see it coming. boom! it was this painful rash of little blisters. red, ugly stuff. lots of 'em. not a good deal. if you've had chicken pox, uh-huh, we all remember chicken pox. well that shingles virus is already inside of you.
it ain't pretty when it comes out. now i'm not telling you this so that you'll feel sorry for me. i'm just here to tell you that one out of three people are gonna end up getting shingles. i was one of 'em. take it from a guy who's had his fair share of pain. you don't want to be tackled by shingles. so please go talk to your doctor or pharmacist. talk to your doctor or pharmacist about your risk. i don't have to leave my desk and get up and go to the post office anymore. [ male announcer ] with stamps.com you can print real u.s. postage for all your letters and packages. i have exactly the amount of postage i need, the instant i need it. can you print only stamps? no... first class. priority mail. certified. international. and the mail man picks it up. i don't leave the shop anymore. [ male announcer ] get a 4 week trial plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
>> all: united, never be defeated! watch out new york. a massive global warming march planned for new york city tomorrow on the heels of a major legal victory for the global warming movement. a prosecutor in massachusetts dropping all criminal charges against activists blocking a 40,000 ton shipment of coal to a power plant. the d.a. admitting he left them off the criminal hook because he agreed with them about climate change. so, john, is this a dangerous precedent? >> it's a terribly dangerous precedent. we are talking about a theory here, because you believe in a theory does not give you the right to go on someone's private property and interrupt their business. interpret their ability to operate. that's what's happening. this business is going to be shut down. these people should be jailed and we should laugh at them in jail for believing in something that's so far is non-existent. even if it's existent it's something we can easily adjust
to. >> rick, the idea is that you can get off of a criminal offense if you believe in global warming. is that right? >> you can only get off a criminal offense if you believe in global warms in that one jurisdiction, apparently. look, in all of years -- >> start a precedent? >> not really. there is no precedent. it's not the way the law works. the next prosecutor in the very next town can say i'm going to enforce the law and put them in jail if convicted. there's no defense in law i ever learned in law school called global warming. so let's not politicize it too much. you have one prosecutor who made a decision. >> that's true. >> voters of that district will be able to get rid of them if they don't like the way he behaved. >> sabrina more than a statement in a courtroom. it was a statement that affected activists blocking 40,000 tons of coal. i mean, this was not nothing. this was a big coal shipment. we are heading into a cold winter. this could cause problems down the line. could it not? >> absolutely. for people like ourselves who
are going to see a spike in energy bills as a result of something like this. look, this is vigilanty. . we can't allow it to continue. all sorts of things i disagree with the government. epa, public school system, obamacare but can't go burn down the white house and protest. we have to follow the rule of law or we're seriously undermining democracy. >> it's now a legal defense? >> that is a dangerous thing. how terrorists justify their activity saying they have a higher purpose. make up the laws as it goes along. sadly our own president makes up the law as he goes along and chooses which ones to enforce and not enforce. we have to stop this thing. if you don't like a law, change it. if you break it, must suffer the consequences for it. >> and global warming alarmists have to take note that it is supposed to be -- it was a terribly cold winter last year. >> right. >> in contradiction by the way of what global warming alarmists are saying, but supposed to be one according to farmers almanac
this year as well. >> that's true. david, i'm going to protest global warming by not paying my gas pilbill. how about that? no. i agree this is astonishing this prosecutor made this move. how about blocking the lobster guys, the fishermen that did this, blocking their driveways so they can't drive their gas polluting suvs? i mean, you're right, david. this is really harmful and i don't want this precedent, i don't yet see another prosecutor, though, taking on this case as rick unger suggests. we need to stop this behavior. >> a free pass for coal protest jers what do you think? >> i think these coal protesters are continuing a long tradition of civil disobedience that goes back to ma haute gaugandhi. it they would protest unplugging air conditioners and promising not to use electric cars.
>> what do you have against mahaute gaunty? >> capitalism provides if we really believe in global warming, consume all the gas and coal as possible. speed up the global warming so that entrepreneurs figure a way around it. i don't think they'll need to. a massive hoax we'll laugh about in future generations. >> in are going to be hundreds of thousands of people in new york city protesting. don't you think somebody's going to be encouraged by what happened to this protesters and try to do the same thing? >> i kind of doubt it. >> why? they succeeded. >> you don't see 40,000 tons of whatever it was of coal rolling through the streets of new york. >> no, no, no. i'm talking somebody somewhere in this country, work for these guys. i'm going to try it where i am. >> but did it work for those guys? i assume the coal got to where it was going. yes? the coal got there. a little disruption. i agree with all of you the rule of law is to be followed. let me say that civil dus o'bead
jens is in the mind of the beholder. i could point to many you would cheer even though you don't like this. >> none of our audience i guarantee will cheer having to pay higher energy prices if these things hold up coal shipments and other carbon energy shipments. >> right. absolutely. it will affect them at the grocery store, at the clothing store, the gasoline pump. affect them in a lot of ways. i sympathize you can't effect change with the political system. it's hard, a great system but not perfect. this country went to civil war over an issue like this. >> money talks and so far the nfl is not seeing its big money sponsors walking over these domestic abuse scandals but should sponsors pull their money?
chloe is 9 months old. she is the greatest thing ever. one little smile. one little laugh. honey bunny... (laughter) we would do anything for her. my name is kim bryant and my husband and i made a will on legalzoom. it was really easy to do. (baby noise...laughter) we created legalzoom to help you take care of the ones you love. go to legalzoom.com today and complete your will in minutes. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.
right here. with a control pad that can read your handwriting, a wide-screen multimedia center, and a head-up display for enhanced driver focus. all inside a newly redesigned cabin of unrivaled style and comfort. ♪ the all-new c-class. at the very touch point of performance and innovation. ♪ at the very touch point of performance and innovation. with up to 27% more brush movements patented sonic technology get healthier gums in two weeks guaranteed. philips sonicare discover the brush that's perfect for you. by telling you where you can earn bonus cash back. and then those categories change every few months. one month it's the "gym"... next month it's movie theaters?!
hey, jennar fuzz mike trooawwwwww scram!g... i'm crust mike jubby roll bond chow gonna lean up an kiss bet. peas charty get town down. [laughter] ♪ borf a liver tute face stummy wag ♪ pow pam sha-beeps stella nerf berms. saxa-nay nay? badumps a head. temexiss gurrin. juppa left. fluppa jown! brone a brood. what? catch up on what everyone's talking about with the x1 entertainment operating system. preloaded with the latest episodes of the top 100 shows. only from xfinity. i got it wrong in the handling of the ray rice matter, and i'm sorry for that. >> the list is growing of nfl sponsors saying the dough mech violence scandals in the league are troubling. will the nfl suffer a financial cost? for all of these scandals? you're the sports business guru. what do you think, mike? >> david, if the nfl doesn't clean up its act and this behavior continues by its players it will suffer a bad
financial hit just like the nba did in the mid-70s before david stern cleaned it up. >> sabrina, so far according to polls, most say they won't change their viewing habits. >> so bothersome. look, teach our sons it's not okay to be violent against women and tell our daughters we don't condone this behavior and turn a blind eye to it. turn off the tv and say they're noting to to continue supporting a bad apple but a pervasive problem in the nfl and other sports. >> i don't disagree that got to take care of the bad apples. rich, the fact is last sunday four games at which they had over 20 million viewers. that is huge. there was no shrinkage at all. >> yeah. nothing aggregates a viewership in a moment in time like nfl football, but, look, the nfl -- i hate to be the one, the outsider here, but does not have a domestic abuse problem. ross pomeroy a clear science
showed nfl players are half as likely to commit that as is the general age group in the general, the same age group in the general population. >> interesting. bill, the fact is that the nfl makes over $1 billion in revenue from ads. will this be cut down at all because of these scandals? >> no. moved around a little bit. listen, let me ask you this question -- do sports fans care as much as scandals as journalists think they ought to care? did people stop watching baseball when they heard about steroids? i don't think so. >> john, didn't hurt baseball. bill says it won't hurt football. what do you think? >> yeah. all big businesses eventually stumble. the nfl eventually will, i don't think this is what's going to take them down. quick counts, fans care more about fantasy football, right or wrong, than about this. >> what do you think? >> short term, no hit. long term, reputational in terms of future players, dealing with the concussion thing and in terms of domestic violence. everyone does it.
not good enough. clean it up like the nba or they will take a reputational hit and advertising will go down. >> thank you very much, gang. coming up, nearly one in four u.s. workers borrowing money for their 401(k) retirement to cover everyday expenses. not good. what is good, the names to pay your bills and protect your nest egg, that's coming up next.
and we are back with the names to help you pay your bills. emack target. >> target resources, it is a hot natural gas play. the shale bloom in the u.s. the cash is going up. moody's gave it a credit upgrade because cash is coming in strong. >> bill? >> i recommend it a few, a year ago, $52. a little expensive now, though. >> you like the company. toro? you like toro? why? >> it makes a beautiful walk behind miniature skidster. a great company. >> do you like it?
>> big on snow blowers. overpriced now. buy it on the dip. >> that it's it for "forbes on fox." have a wonderful resident, everybody. keep it ride here. the number ockckckckck continues with eric bolling and "cashing in." profile to protect america. the threat to attack us right here in the homeland are piling up but a common thread to these attacks on america. is it a time to profile? it's the controversial but common sense plan that no one has the guts to talk about except us, and then -- wave the white flag on the war on poverty. the most expensive war in u.s. history a colossal failure. the shocking numbers to back that up and then this -- more controversy in the national felon league. benches players at center of the abuse scandal and beaters are still getting paid, but should they? "cashing in" starts right now. hi,