Republican Presidential Candidates Debate FOX Business November 10, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EST
cycle and the second fox business/wall street journal republican presidential debate begins now. ♪ >> the road to the white house is long and winding. candidates have traveled from coast to coast, to hear from their fellow americans. faced tough questions, and laid out a vision for the country. tonight, the road leads through wisconsin. the birthplace of the republican party. the cradle of american industry. where winners are crowned, and legends are forged. abraham lincoln campaigned for president just a few blocks
away. across the street teddy roosevelt was shot by a would-be assassin. in this very theater, lodged a campaign with the bullet still lodged in his chest. now the economy is at the top top of the agenda, americans are concerned about their jobs and their families and hopes that the road ahead leads to a better future. here in wisconsin they have seen their fair share of partisanship but they persevere and their spirit remains strong. >> from now, if anyone tries to sell america short, or tells me that americans don't have the will to compete or the stamina to keep out in front, i will tell them to come to see you, the people of wisconsin. [applause] >> election day is less than a year away. first votes will be cast in just three months.
and for the first time, the end of the road can be scene on the horizon. ♪ moderator: it is 9:00 p.m. on the east coast, 8:00 p.m. here inside the milwaukee theater. welcome to the republican presidential debate here on the fox business network. i'm neil cavuto. alongside my comoderators, maria bartiromo, and the editor-in-chief of the "wall street journal," gerard baker. moderator: tonight we're partnering with the "wall street journal" to ask questions on the economy that voters want answered. we're working with facebook, who tells us that since the first republican debate, more than 58 million people have joined the political conversation online.
more than 9 million are talking specifically about the economy. moderator: the candidates on stage tonight were selected based on their standing in an average of four national polls. those standings determining their position on the stage. and here they are. at center stage, businessman donald trump. [applause] neurosurgeon, dr. ben carson. [applause] moderator: florida senator marco rubio. [applause] texas senator ted cruz. [applause] former florida governor jeb bush. [applause]
moderator: businesswoman, carly fiorina. [applause] ohio governor john kasich. [applause] and kentucky senator rand paul. [applause] moderator: tonight's rules are simple. up to 90 second force each answer. one minute for each follow-up response. and if a candidate goes over their allotted time, you'll here this. moderator: sounds like a game show but it's not. now i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the elephant in the room, and i'm not talking about your party's fine symbol. i'm talking about the purpose of tonight's debate. the economy and what each of you would do to improve it. no more, no less.
we are focused on those issues and what you have said on those issues in your words and what your opponents have said in their words about your words. that is the agenda tonight. how each of you plans to make america better tomorrow. so we begin. candidates, as we gather tonight in this very august theater, just outside and across the country picketers are gathering as well. they're demanding an immediate hike in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. just a few hours ago, near governor andrew cuomo proposed doing the same for all state workers, the first governor to do so. mr. trump, as the leading presidential candidate on this stage and one whose tax plan exempts couples making up to
$50,000 a year from paying any federal income taxes at all, are you sympathetic to the protesters cause since a $15 wage works out to about $31,000 a year? >> i can't be neil. the and the reason i can't be we are a country that is being beaten on every front economically, militarily. there is nothing that we do now to win. we don't win anymore. our taxes are too high. i've come up with a tax plan that many, many people like very much. it's going to be a tremendous plan. i think it will make our country and our economy very dynamic. but, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. i hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is. people have to go out, they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper strattestimony. -- stratem we can not do this if we are going to compete with the
rest of the world. we just can't do it. moderator: do not raise the minimum wage? >> i would not do it. [applause] moderator: dr. carson, you have long bemoaned this lackluster recovery. this facebook map show americans share your concern. the green represents how the jobs issue is resonating all across the nation's specially here in the state of wisconsin. you suggested one minimum wage does not fit all, and that perhaps we should offer a lower or starter wage for young people. those protesters outside are looking for $15 and nothing less. where are you? >> first of all, delighted to be here. my family's here and my little granddaughter who is three years old, said she wanted to come to the debate. so this is very cool. as far as the minimum wage is concerned, people need to be educated on the minimum wage. every time we raise the minimum
wage, the number of jobless people increases. this is particularly a problem in the black community. only 19.8% of black teenagers have a job. or are looking for one. and that's because of those high wages. if you lower those wages, that comes down. you know, i can remember as a youngster, you know my first job working in a laboratory as a lab assistant and multiple other jobs but i would would not have gotten those jobs if someone had to pay me a large amount of money but what i gained from those jobs is tremendous amount of experience and how to operate in the world and how to relate to different people and how to become a responsible individual. and that's what gave me what i needed to assend the ladder of opportunity in this country. that is what we need to be thinking about. how do we allow people to assend
the ladder of opportunity and rather than give them everything and keep them dependent. [applause] moderator: sir, just to be clear you would not raise it? >> i would not raise it. i would not raise it specifically because i'm interested in making sure that people are able to enter the job market and take advantage of opportunities. [applause] moderator: senator rubio, you called the recent democratic debate in las vegas a night of giveaways, including free health care, free college and a host of other government-paid benefits. since you aren't a fan of all their giving away, tell us tonight what you would take back. >> let me begin answering first question and this one because they're related. i have said many times before my parents were never rich people. my father was a bartender. my mother was a maid. they worked for a living but
they were successful people because despite because they weren't well-educated and in those jobs made enough money to buy a home, live in safe neighborhood and retire dignity. make all four children better off themselves. we call the american dream, but universal dream of better life people have all over the world. it is reminder every country in the world has rich people. what makes america special we have millions and millions of people who are not rich but are successful. people are not successful working as hard as ever. the economy is providing jobs to pay enough. if i thought minimum wage would be best way to help increase their pay i would be all tore for it but it isn't. in the 20th century it is disaster f you raise the minimum wage you make people more expensive than machines. all automation replacing people will be accelerated. here is the best way. to make america the best way to start a business or expand a business. tax reform, regulatory reform.
bring our debt under control. fully use our energy resources to reinvigorate manufacturing. repeal and replace obamacare and make higher education faster and easier to access especially vocational training. for the life of me i don't don't know why we stigma is tood vocational education. welders make more money than philosophers. we need more welders than philosophers. [applause] if we do that, if we do this, if we do this, we will be able to increase wages for millions of americans. we will be able to leave everyone better off without making anyone worse off. moderator: thank you, senator rubio. [applause] moderator: we've asked people on facebook to submit their questions for the candidates. seth bell wrote, we are approaching $20 trillion in national debt. specifically, what plans do you have to cut federal spending? governor kasich, you have spoken much about your success in balancing the budget under
president clinton. today the national debt is at record highs and growing unsustainably. interest will be the fastest growing part of the federal budget, tripling over the next 10 years. social security, the lifeline of millions of american seniors, is rushing towards insolvency. with all of the tax plans presented tonight, estimated to cost anywhere between 2 and $12 trillion over a decade, what specific steps will you take to balance the budget? >> first of all, let me just say in the state of ohio, i'm only acting executive on this stage today, we do have a moderate increase in the minimum wage. i got to tell you, my father carried mail on his back. his father was a coal miner. he died of black lung. he was losing his eyesight. my mother's mother lived with us. she could barely speak english. i come from a town where if the wind blew the wrong way, people found themselves out of work.
and economic theory is fine but you know what? people need help. now i have a plan that in fact would cut taxes but not 11 or $12 trillion, that would put my children further in debt. i have a plan that would not only cut taxes, lower the income tax rate for individuals, lower the tax for businesses so businesses will compete here and not move operations overseas, and also a plan, the only plan of anybody standing on this stage to get us to a balanced budget by the end of a second term. and, you know the simple fact of the matter is, we hear a lot of promises in this debate. a lot of promises about these tax cuts or tax schemes sometimes that call them. hillary and the democrats promise everything on the spending side. we have to be responsible about what we propose on the tax side. yes, lower taxes, lower spending. my website, johncase i can.com, will show you exactly how we balance the budget. i balanced the budget in
washington as chief architect. i balanced in ohio for one reason. when you balance the budget and cut taxes people get work. and our most important moral purpose, as leaders in the political system is to make sure we create an environment for job creation so people can live their dreams and realize their god-given potential. that is why it is so important. for those at the bottom, we've got to do what we can to train them so they can move up but just to look the other way is not acceptable because you know what? as the governor of ohio i have to deal with real challenges and we've gotten it done in our state and i will do it for america. [applause] moderator: did you want to name any specific steps, sir? >> sure. we would move the medicare system from a 7% growth down to about 5% growth. and i have a whole series of ways to do that. in ohio we reduced medicaid funding for the poor from 10% to 2 1/2%. didn't cut one benefit or didn't take anybody off the rolls.
why? because we're innovators. i've been an innovator my entire career. i don't care what special interests or lobbies have to say. i have a job to do and when i take over a public office. now we freezed non-defense discretionary for eight years. we also put an increase in defense spending. our tax cuts balance out and at the end of the day we will get to a balanced budget. i want everybody here to know. when i was budget committee chairman in washington i stepped on every toe in that town and we got to a balanced budget and we had enormous job growth. and as governor of ohio we went from 350,000 lost jobs to a gain of 347,000 jobs. i will do it in washington. moderator: thank you, sir. >> i have done it twice. i will do it thrice for the united states of america. [applause] moderator: senator cruz, the international monetary fund recently cut its expectations for economic growth.
many economists expect a recession to hit the u.s. within the next year. due to the weakening of manufacturing. the next president will have to deal with it. you say, tax reform is a powerful lever to spur economic expansion. you're calling for a 10% income tax and 16% business tax. what other elements do you need in this plan to actually create jobs? >> well, maria, it is great to be with you. it's great to be here in milwaukee. you know the question you asked i think is really the most important question any of us can face, which is how do we get the economy growing? how do we bring back economic growth? because economic growth, it's foundational to every other challenge we have. as you rightly noted from 2008 to today, our economy has grown 1.2% a year on average. the obama economy is a disaster and the imf is telling us this is the new normal. it doesn't have to be. if you look at the history of
america, there are three levers that government has had to facilitate economic growth. the first is tax reform. and as you noted i have rolled out a bold and simple flat tax. 10% for every american that would produce booming growth and 4.9 million new jobs within a decade. the second element is regulatory reform, pulling back the armies of regulators that have descended like locusts on small businesses. and the third element is sound money. every time we pursued all three of those, whether in the 1920s with calvin coolidge, or the 1960s with jfk or in the 1980s with ronald reagan, the result has been incredible economic growth. we have done it before and with leadership we can do it again. [applause] moderator: thank you, sir. >> excuse me. moderator: governor bush? >> i would like to make
comments. >> already made two comments, john. moderator: more questions for you governor kasich. >> i got four minutes last debate. >> i appreciate it jeb. i'm all for you. i want to talk about value-added tax and 11 or $12 trillion tax cuts that will put our kids way deeper in the hole than they have been at this point. so i would like to talk about it at some point. that is what leadership is. moderator: we will certainly get to that. governor bush? >> yes. moderator: almost 40% of the americans are without a job and are not looking. many have given up. that's what the participation rate tells us. you have said, your policies will drive the economy back to 4% growth which we haven't seen since the year 2000. what specific regulations would you change and how will that lead to jobs and growth? >> first of all, we could get to 4% growth. the new normal of 2% puts huge demands on government. the reason we have structural deficits that more and more people are relying on government
and the growth that we don't have makes the deficit grow. a 4% growth strategy starts with tax reform and in the proposal that i have laid out is the one "the wall street journal" editorial board has said the most pro-growth of all the proposals out there. we cut the, we eliminate a lot of deductions and cut the rates down. a corporate rate of 20% which puts us 5% above -- below of that china and allows us full expensing of investing. it would create an explosion of investment back into this country, creating higher-wage jobs some that's part of it. on the regulatory side i think we need to repeal every rule that barack obama has in terms of work in progress. everyone of them. [applause] and start over. for those that are already in existence, the regulation of the internet, we have to start over but we ought to do that. the clean power act, we ought to repeal that and start over on that. the waters of the united states act which is going to be
devastating for agriculture and many industry, we should repeal that we should repeal the rules because the economic costs of this far exceed the social benefit. if we're serious about being serious about high growth, then we have to recognize that small businesses right now, more of them are closing than are being set up. hillary clinton has said that barack obama's policies get an "a.." really? one in 10 people right now aren't working or, have given up all together as you said. that is not an a. one in seven people are living in poverty. that's not an a. one in five children are on food stamps. that is not an a. may be the best that hillary clinton can do but it is not the best america can do. [applause] moderator: thank you, sir. [applause] moderator: miss fiorina, while you all pointed out how weak the current recovery has been and how disappointing by any historical standards, in the general election the democrats will inevitably ask you and
voters to compare the recent president's jobs performance. now in seven years under president obama, the u.s. has added an average of 107,000 jobs a month. under president clinton the economy added about 240,000 jobs a month. under george w. bush, it was only 13,000 a month. if you win the nomination you will probably be facing a democrat named clinton. how will you respond to the claim that democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than republicans? >> well first of all i must say as i think about that question i think about a woman i met the other day. i would guess she was 40 years old. she had several children and she said to me, you know, carly, i go to bed every night afraid for my children's future. and that really struck me. this is america. a mother is going to bed afraid for her childrens 'future. the reason she is afraid for her
childrens 'future, we had problems a long time. yes, problems have gotten much worse under democrats. the truth is this government has been growing bigger and bigger, more corrupt, less effective, crushing the engine of economic growth for a very long time. this isn't about just replacing a democrat with a republican now. it is about challenging the status quo of big government. big government has created a big business called politics. and there are lots of people invested in the status quo of that big business called politics specifically. we need to actually do five things. to really get this economy going again. we need to go to zero-based budgeting so we know where every dollar is being spent. we can challenge any dollar, cut any dollar, move any dollar. [applause] we need to actually reform the tax code. go to a three-page tax code. yes, there are plans that would reform our tax code to three pages. in addition to rolling back what president obama has done we need to do a top to bottom review of
every single regulation on the books. that hasn't been done in 50 years. we need to pass the raines act so congress is in charge of regulation, not nameless faces bureaucrats accountable to no one. we've become a nation of rules. not a nation of laws. finally we have to hold government officials accountable for their performance. all this has to be done. and citizens of this nation must tell a president fiorina, get it done. we must take our government back. [applause] moderator: thank you. thank you. senator paul, income inequality has been rising in the united states. 50 years ago, for example, the average ceo of a big corporation in this country earned 20 times the average salary of one of his or her workers. today that ceo earns about 300 times the average salary of a worker. does it matter at all that the gap between the rich and everyone else is widening?
>> absolutely and i think that we ought to look where income inequality seems to be worst. it seems to be worst in cities run by democrats. governors -- [applause] states run by democrats and countries currently run by democrats. the thing is, let's look for root causes. but i would also lay some blame at the feet of the federal reserve. i think the federal reserve has made this problem worse. by artificially keeping interest rates below the market rate, average ordinary citizens have a tough time earning interest, have a tough time making money. they're actually talking now about negative interest. the money as it is created through quantitative easing or other means tends to start out in big banks in new york. because we're now paying interest for them to keep the money there, much of that money has not filtered out into the economy. what we're finding there is increasing income disparity and income inequality. we also find that as the federal reserve destroys the value of
the currency, what you're finding is that if you're poor, if you make $20,000 a year and you have three or four kids and you're trying to get by, as your prices rice or as the value of the dollar shrinks, these are the people hurt the worst. so we really need to reexamine whether we want a federal reserve that involves so much in determining interest rates. we also need to look at root causes as to what caused the housing boom and the housing collapse but the bottom line is if you want less income inequality, move to city with republican mayor or a state with a republican governor. [applause] moderator: thank you. we're only just getting started. coming up your taxes. stick around. you're watching fox business. ♪
big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪ ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪
moderator: welcome back to the milwaukee theater and the republican presidential debate. let's get right back to our questions. dr. carson, to you. you recently railed against the double-standard in the media, sir, that seems obsessed with inconsistencies and potential exaggerations in your life story but looked the other way when it came to then senator barack obama's. still, as a candidate whose brand has always been trust, are you worried your campaign, which you have always said, sir, is bigger than you, is now being hurt by you? >> well, first of all, thank you not asking me what i said in the 10th grade. i appreciate that. [laughter] [applause] moderator: i will just forget that follow-up there. >> the fact of the matter is,
what, we should vet all candidates. i have no problem with being vetted. what i do have a problem with is being lied about. and then, putting that out there. as truth. [applause] and, i don't even mind that so much, if they do it with everybody, like people on the other side but you know, when i look at somebody like hillary clinton, who sits there and tells her daughter and a government official that no, this was a terrorist attack and then tells everybody else that it was a video, where i came from, they call that a lie. and -- [applause] i think that's very different from, you know, somebody misinterpreting, when i said, that i was offered a scholarship
to west point, that is the word that they used. but, i have had many people come and say the same thing to me. that is what people do in those situations. we have to start treating people the same. and finding out what people really think and what they're made of. people who know me know that i'm an honest person. [applause] moderator: thank you, dr. carson. moderator: mr. trump, a federal appeals court just dealt a blow to the obama administration's plan to prevent the deportation of five million people living in this country illegally. the white house is appealingingo the supreme court. at the heart of this issue, is the effect that illegal immigrants are having on our economy, what will you do about it? >> i was so happy yesterday when i saw that decision come down. that was an unbelievable decision. and we don't have enough of those decisions coming down.
effect on economy? >> we are going -- you will have to send people out. we're a country of laws. we either have a country or we don't have a country. we are a country of laws. going to have to go out and they will come back but they will have to go out and hopefully they get back but we have no choice if we're going to run our country properly and if we're going to be a country. [applause] moderator: thank you, sir. >> maria, can we comment on that? moderator: another rubio. one quick comment. >> well look, in 1986 ronald reagan basically said the people who were here, if they were law-abiding could stay. but, what didn't happen we didn't build a walls effectively and we didn't control the border. we need to. we need to control our border just like people have to control who goes in and out of their house. but if people think that we are going to ship 11 million people who are law-abiding, who are in
this country and somehow pick them up at their house and ship them out of mexico, to mexico, think about the families? think about the children. so, you know the answer really is? if they have been law-abiding, they pay a penalty. they get to stay. we protect the wall. anybody else comes over, they go back but for the 11 million people, come on, folks. we all know you can't pick them up and ship them across, back across the border. it is a silly argument. it is not an adult argument. makes no sense. [applause] >> all i can say
is, you're lucky in ohio that you struck oil. that is for one thing. let me just tell you that dwight eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. i like ike, right? the expression. i like ike. moved a million 1/2 illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. they came back. moved them again, beyond the border, they came back. didn't like it.
and that's where we are going to get our jobs. ohio is diversified. little false things, sir, they don't work when it comes to the truth. the fact is, all i'm suggesting we can't ship 11 million people out of this country. children would be terrified and it will not work. moderator: let me just -- >> built unbelievable company worth billions and billions of dollars. i don't have to hear from this man. believe me. i don't have to hear from him. moderator: mr. trump, mr. trump, you yourself, you yourself said let governor bub the speak. governor bush. >> thank you, donald for allowing me to speak at the debate. really nice of you. i appreciate that. [applause] what a generous man you are. 12 million illegal immigrants, to send them back, 500,000 a month, is just, not possible. and it's not embracing american values. and it would tear communities apart. and it would send a signal that
we're not the kind of country that know america is. [applause] and even having this conversation sends a powerful signal, they're doing high-fives in the clinton campaign right now when they hear this. that's the problem with this. we have to win the presidency. the way you win the presidency is have practical plans. lay them out there. what we need to do is allow people to earn legal status where they pay a fine. where they work. where they don't commit crimes and learn english over extended period of time they eastern legal status. that is the path of, a proper path to make citizens. [applause] moderator: senator rubio, senator -- >> we have millions of people right now online trying to come into this country. very, very unfair to the people that want to come into our country legally. they have gone through the process. they're online. they're waiting. very, very unfair to them. that i can tell you. moderator: senator rubio. senator rubio. [applause] let me take you to a question i
think will get to the root of a lot of anxieties people have this country. the economy is undergoing transformation through information technology. americans are anxious that the new economy isn't producing higher-paying jobs. many are concerned that the new wealth seems to go mainly to innovators an investors. meanwhile with factories run by robots and shopping done increasingly on smartphones, many traditional jobs are just going away. how do you reassure american workers that their jobs are not, steadily replaced by machines? >> that is an excellent question because what we're going through in this country is not simply a economic downturn. we're living through a massive economic transformation. this economy is nothing like it was five years ago, not to mention 15 or 20 years ago. and it isn't just a different economy, it is changing faster than ever. took the telephone 75 years to reach 100 million users. took "candy crush" one year to reach 100 million users. the world is changing faster than ever, and it is disruptive. number 1:00 we're in global
competition. several candidates said that there are dozens of developed economies on this planet we have to compete with. we lose the competition because we have the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world. because we have regulations that continue tin to grow by billions every single week. we have crazy health care law that discourages companies from hiring people. we're not fully utilizing our energy resources. if we did would bring back all kinds of growth especially in manufacturing. because we have outdated higher education system. our higher education system is completely outdated. it is too expensive, too hard to access and doesn't teach 21st century skills. if we do what needs to be done, tax reform, regulatory reform, fully utilize our energy resources repeal and replace obamacare and modernize higher education we can grasp of potential and promise of this new economy. we won't just save the american dream. we will expand it to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. truly this new century can be a new american century. [applause]
moderator: senator cruz, entitlements. you have argued for raising the retirement age and reducing benefit for future retirees but reducing any sort of benefits for the elderly has always been notoriously hard to do politically. when speaker paul ryan proposed replacing traditional medicare with federally-funded private plans a few years ago a liberal group responded with commercial that feature ad granny being pushed off of a cliff. what is going to be different this time? >> well, my mom is here. so i don't think we should be pushing any grannies off of cliffs. misstated what i said on entitlement reform. for seniors we should make no changes whatsoever. for younger workers we should gradually change retirement age, benefits go more slowly and keep their taxes in personal account they can control for future
retirement. moderator: i said future retirees. >> what was said was right, the democrats are laughing because if republicans join democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose. [applause] and you know, i understand that when the mainstream media covers immigration, it doesn't often see it as an economic issue. but i can tell you for millions of americans at home, watching this, it is a very personal economic issue. and i will say the politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the rio grande. or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press. [laughter] [applause] then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation. and i will say for those of us
who believe people ought to come to this country legally and we should enforce the law, we're tired of being told, it is anti-immigrant. it's offensive. [applause] i am the son of an immigrant who came legally from cuba. to seek the american dream. and we can embrace legal immigration while believing in the rule of law. and i would note, try going illegally to another country. try going to china or japan. try to go into mexico. see what they do. every sovereign nation secures its borders and it is not compassionate to say we're not going to enforce the laws and we're going to drive down the wages for millions of hard-borning men and women. that is -- hard-working men and women. that is abandoning the working men and women. [applause] moderator: we go back to facebook. duane kato asks on facebook, how
do we get rid of regulations choking our businesses? miss fiorina, specifically under the president's affordable care act, employers with 50 or more employees are required to offer health insurance or be fined. many are opting to pay the fine. others are cutting back employee hours, to duck the law all together. what specific ways will you alleviate the pressure on small business? >> well, first obamacare has to be repealed because it's failing. [applause] it is failing the very people it was intended to help but also it is crony capitalism at its worse. who helped write this bill? drug companies, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and every single one of those kinds of companies are bulking up to deal with big of the go. see that is what happens. as government gets bigger and bigger and it has been for 50 years under republicans and
democrats alike, businesses have to bulk up to deal with big government. we have to repeal it. it is tens of thousand of pages long. no one can possibly understand it except big companies, lawyers, accountants, lobbyists they hire to protect their interests. we have to give back to states responsibility to manage the high-risk pool. we need to try one thing in insurance we never tried. health insurance is always been a sy little game between regulators and health insurance companies. we need to try the free market, the free market, where people actually have to compete. [applause] and which ought to have the government insure that you must, i don't use that term often the government ought to do something, every health care provider should publish costs, prices, outcomes, because as patients we don't know what we're buying. [applause] let me just say, let me just say i know more about innovation and entrepreneurship than anyone on this panel because i led innovative businesses in the
most highly competitive businesses in the world for decades of the truth is, the secret sauce of america is innovation and entrepreneurship. it is why we must cut our government down to size and hold it accountable. it's why we have to take our government back. because innovation and entrepreneurship is crushed by the crushing load of a 73,000 page tax code. it is crushed by regulatory thicket that is so vast we don't even know what's in it anymore. it is crushed as well by government bureaucrats who don't do their jobs very well and who are not held accountable which is why i said we have to take our government back. to do that we have to know where any dollar is being spent. to move any dollar. hack through the regulatory thicket, repeal so much, but know what is the in the regulatory thicket. we don't know what regulations have been passed. third, we need to build a meritocracy as scott walker is trying to do in wisconsin. of the finally get to a three-page tax code.
yes, that plan exists. moderator: just to be clear, you want to repeal obamacare. [applause] but what's the alternative? >> sorry, i can't hear you? moderator: just to be clear you said you would repeal obamacare but what is the alternative to help small businesses? >> the tall tern tiff is to allow -- alternative to allow states to manage high-risk pools to get help. i'm a cancer survivor. i understand you can not have someone who battled cancer become known as preexisting condition. i understand you can not allow families to go bankrupt if they truly need help but i also understand obamacare is not helping anyone. we're throwing more and more people into medicaid and fewer and fewer doctors are taking those payments the point is obamacare is crushing small businesses. it is not helping families it intended to help. let us allow states to manage high-risk pools. let us try one thing in health insurance we never tried, the free market.
♪ moderator: welcome back to the republican presidential debate live from milwaukee. let's get back to the questions and we want to touch on obviously one of the biggest of this issue and this year, taxes. this will go to several of you. one of the biggest economic concerns of course in the country are taxes. facebook data certainly backs that up. once again the green on this map that we're going to see here shows how the covers around
taxes is resonating across the nation's specially here in wisconsin. first off, dr. carson, to you. you say you are in favor of a tax system, i guess akin to tithing, sir, with a flat tax rate of up to 15% because you said, if everybody pays this, i think god is a pretty fair guy. so tithe something a pretty fair process. but donald trump says that is not fair. that wealthier taxpayers should pay a higher rate because it's a fair thing to do. so whose plan would god endorse then, doctor? [laughter]. yours or mr. trump's? >> well you know, when i say tithing, i'm talking about the concept of proportionality. moderator: right. >> everybody should pay the same proportion of what they make. you make $10 billion, you pay a billion. you make $10 you pay one. you get same rights and privileges. i don't see how anything gets a whole lot fairer than than that you have to get rid of all
deductions and loopholes because that is the thing that tilts it in one direction or another. you have to set the rate at an appropriate level. now i will say that, there are a lot of people who say, if you get rid of the deductions, you ruin the american dream because you know, home mortgage deduction. but the fact of the matter is, people had homes before 1913 when we introduced the federal income tax, and later after that started deductions. and they say there there will bo more charitable giving. we had churches before that and charitable organizations before that. the fact of the matter is, i believe if you put more money in people's pockets that they will actually be more generous rather than less generous. [applause] the money that they earn. and, the other thing is, i do care about the poor people and in the system that we're putting together, there will be a rebate for people at the poverty level.
but i, also want to emphasize the fact that, as we get the economy moving and i hope i get a question how do we get the economy moving, there will be a lot more opportunities for poor people not to be poor people because this is america. this is the land of dreams. and our policies should be aimed at allowing people to realize that dream. [applause] moderator: thank you very much. senator paul, you said you want to blow up the tax code, and start over with across the board, 14 1/2% fair and flat tax. you happily offer that it is not revenue neutral and that is the idea. you want to choke off the amount of money coming into washington. but don't you risk, sir, creating a near-term budget crisis just as your presidency would be beginning? >> well, it's a great question, neil, thanks for including me in the tax debate. i think what's important about the tax debate is, that we have to ask the question, where is
money best spent, in the private sector, in the government sector? i want a government really, really small, so small you can barely see it. so i want lower taxes and much more money in the private sector. [applause] my tax plan, however, is the only tax plan among any of the candidates on the stage that is part of a balanced budget plan. i put forward three plans that actually balance the budget over a five-year period. each of these plans have details on exactly where we would cut. the question came up earlier where would you cut? nobody likes to say where they would cut. i put pencil to paper and done three budgets that actually balance. i'm also in favor of a plan called the penny plan where we just cut 1% across the board and budget actually balances in less than five years. so i think what is extraordinary about my tax plan, it is in the context of balancing the budget. what is also extraordinary about my tax plan, it gets rid of the payroll tax.
democrats demagogue this issue to death. when they do, they say, millionaire would get a bigger tax cut than someone making $10,000. that is proportionality has been trying to explain to folks but the thing is, if we get rid of payroll tax, everybody will get a tax cut. this ising that i think the public at large will support. and could win an election. [applause] >> there are no deductions under your plan? >> ours is 14 1/2% for corporations. 14 1/2% for individuals. no payroll tax for employee. the business tax pays for social security and there would be two remaining deductions, home mortgage and charity. moderator: thank you, senator. >> thank you. [applause] moderator: senator cruz, there isn't anyone in this audience or watching at home tonight who would not like to pay less in taxes. most people just want a fair shake and they don't want their money to be wasted. but explain how your plan works. how can you cut taxes as much as
you propose without running up debt and deficits? >> well, sure. you put your finger on what the problem is. the current system isn't fair. washington is fundamentally corrupt. there are more words in the irs code than there are in the bible. and not a one of them is as good. [laughter] everyone of them reflects a carveout or a subsidy and it is all about empowering the washington cartel. my simple flat tax says for a family of four, for the thirst $36,000 you earn you pay no taxes whatsoever. no income taxes, no payroll taxes, no nothing. above that, every american pays 10% across the board, a flat, fair tax which means, that no longer do you have hedge fund billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. on the business side i have a business flat tax of 16%. again that applies across the board.
with our corporating in tax, giant corporations with armies of accountants regularly are paying little to no taxes while small businesses are getting hammered. this is fair and across the board. you ask how do the numbers add up? i would encourage folks if you go to our website, tedcruz.org, we have the specific numbers on the website. this plan, eliminates the payroll tax, eliminates the death tax, eliminates the corporate income tax and it abolishes the irs. [applause] and the effect of that is incredible economic growth. it means every income group will see double digit increases from the very poorest to the very weakest of at least 14%. so if you're a single mom, if you're making $40,000 a year, what that means is an extra about $5,000 in your pocket to provide for your kids, to make ends meet. it has a powerful, powerful effect. and there is one other really powerful feature on the plan.
it is boarder adjustable. which means if you are farmer, rancher, manufacturer, you don't pay the business flat tax. exports are free of that tax but all imports pay that 16% business flat tax which means, this tax plan would cause jobs to boom, and it would let america compete with china, and the world on a level playing field. [applause] moderator: but you haven't told us how to pay for it? >> well, the numbers the tax foundation have put out is that the static cost of the plan is 3.6 trillion over 10 years. but the dynamic cost of the plan, which is the cost that factors in growth, is about 768 billion. it es less than a trillion. it costs less than virtually every other plan people have put up here and yet it produces more growth and one of the very few plans that abolishes the irs, but on top of that, today, we rolled out a spending plan.
$500 billion in specific cuts. five major agencies that would eliminate, the irs, the department of commerce, the department of energy, the department of commerce and hud and, then 25 specific programs again, that is on our website at tedcruz.org. you want to look at specificity? easy for everyone to say cut spending. it is much harder and riskier to put out chapter and verse specifically, the programs you would cut to stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids. moderator: thank you, senator moderator: will you guarantee it in the first year of your presidency? >> i'm going to fight as hard as i can to make sure we shift power away from washington, simplify the tax code, to spur
economic activity in this country. of course it's the highest priority. if we don't do, that we're stuck with the new normal of 2% growth. hillary clinton says basically we just got to get used to it. 2% growth means declining income for the middle class. means more than six million people are stuck in poverty than the day that barack obama was inaugurated. it means more demands on government. growing the economy is the first job if we're going to be serious about dealing with the deficit and debt. and more importantly, people are struggling right now. in this economy, the disposable income of the great middle is down 2300 bucks. so yeah, we created jobs, you brought up that early. good question. lower income jobs than the jobs that were lost. and the net effect of this is we need to jump-start the economy. i think of jonathan and reagan love who are supporters of mine. jonathan has been deployed by the national guard, he's in oklahoma. reagan love, by the way, great name, i think, is a teacher. if they had the tax cut, what
they told me is that $2300 of money in their pocket, they would go back to south carolina and start a business. imagine what it would be like instead of having more businesses closed than started. we had the exact opposite. we would grow our economy, and the government would get the revenue necessary to make things better. hillary clinton's approach to this is more topdown, more regulation, more taxes, more government and it will destroy our economy. >> thank you, governor, coming to you mr. trump in one second. senator rubio, tax plan includes a large expansion of child tax credits to raise up the tax incomes for low income parents. a similar tax credit that you previously proposed in the senate was estimated to cost as much as $170 billion a year according to the tax foundation. isn't there a risk that you're just adding another expensive entitle program to an already overburdened federal budget?
>> the most important job i'm going to have, the most important job anyone in the room will have is the job of being a parent. not the job of being a president, senator, job of being a congressman. the most important job any of us will be is the job of being a president. the most important institution in society is the family. if the family breaks down, society breaks down. you can't have a strong nation without strong values and no one is born with strong values. they have to be taught to you in strong families and reinforced to you and strong communities. when we set out to do tax reform, we endeavor to have a pro-family tax code because we know how difficult it is for families in the 21st century to avoid the cost of living. it is expensive to raise children in the 21st century and families raising children are raising future taxpayers of the united states, and everything costs more. and 35 out of 50 states, child care costs more than college. there are millions watching this broadcast tonight understand that exactly what i'm talking about. they don't know how they're going to make that payment every month, and if they can't make it, they can't work because someone needs to watch
>> governor kasich? let me go to governor kasich. >> excuse me. moderator: very quickly, senator. >> i get my 60 seconds to respond, he's talking about my tax plan. let me begin with this. first of all, this is their money, it is refundable not just against the taxes on the federal income tax, it's refundable against the payroll tax. everyone pays payroll tax. this is their money, not our money. here's what i don't understand, if you invest the money in a piece of equipment or business, you get to write it off taxes. if you invest in your children, in the future of america and strengthening your family, we're not going to recognize that in the tax code. the family is the most important institution. >> how is it conservative? >> i know that rand is a committed isolationist. i'm not. i believe the world is a stronger and a better place, and the united states is the strongest military power in the world. >> marco! marco! how is it conservative, how is it conservative to add a trillion dollar expenditure for the federal government that
you're not paying for? how is it conservative? how is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? you cannot be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs you're not going to pay for. >> may i respond? moderator: quickly. >> we can't even have an economy if we're not safe. there are radical jihadists in the middle east beheading people and crucifying christians. the chinese taking over the south china sea. yes, i believe the world is a safer -- no, i don't believe, i know the world is a safer and better place when america is the strongest military power in the world. [ applause ] >> marco, i don't think we're any safer. i do not think we are any safer from bankruptcy court. as we go further and further into debt, we become less and less safe. this is the most important thing we're going to talk about tonight. can you be a conservative and
be liberal on military spending? can you be for unlimited military spending and say i'm going to make the country safe? we need a safe country, but we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined? i want a strong national defense. but i don't want us bankrupt. . [ bell ringing ] . >> there is a middle ground that brings both together. there is a middle ground that brings both of these together. the middle ground is this, it is exactly right we have to defend this nation. you think defending this nation is expensive, try not defending it? that's a lot more expensive. but can you do that and pay for it. you can do that and also be fiscally responsible. you know i mentioned the 25 programs they put out today they would eliminate them. among them are corporate welfare like sugar subsidies. take that as an example. sugar subsidies.
sugar farmers farm on roughly 0.2% of the farmland in america and give 40% of the lobbying money, that sort of corporate welfare is why we're bankrupting our kids and grandkids, i would end the subsidies to pay for defending this nation. moderator: gentlemen, this is why -- >> this is why we must combine, actually, zero based budgeting with tax reform. because unless we can examine and cut and move every single dollar of discretionary spending in the federal government, we cannot reform taxes and reduce spending at the same time. ask yourself this question, how is it possible that the federal government gets more money each and every year, which the federal government has been doing, receiving more money, every year for 50 years under republicans and democrats alike, and yet, never has enough money to do the important things? the answer?
all the money is always spoken for. all the money is spoken for. so we have to go to zero based budgeting, which is a simple idea. by the way, there's been a bill for zero based budgeting. it exists, it can be voted on. every dollar must be examined. any dollar can be cut. any dollar can be moved. we have to go to a three page tax code. you lower every rate, you close every loophole. why? because the government use the tax code to decide winners and losers. you have to strip the corruption out of the tax code to pay for it. you have to know where every single dollar is being spent. cut where you need to and invest where you need to. they go hand in hand. moderator: we need to move on. mr. trump, the u.s. -- >> if i might? we have to make our military bigger, better, stronger than ever before so that nobody messes with us, and in the long run, it's going to save us, i agree with marco, i agree with ted, we have no choice, and i
can tell you this with certainty. we all have a different tax plan. some i don't totally agree with. one thing we understand, each one of those tax plans is better than the mess that we have right now. moderator: let's talk about -- mr. trump, i really must move on. i want to move on. mr. trump, let's talk about the international economy -- >> mr. baker, everybody wants to talk about taxes. moderator: we need to move on. i think you were coming to me. >> i hate to crash the party, baker, what's fair is fair. moderator: mr. trump, the u.s. concluded an international trade agreement with 11 countries in the pacific. you've said that you'd rather have no deal than sign the one that's on the table. >> a horrible deal. moderator: most economists say that trade has boosted growth and every single post-war president that supported the expansion of international trade, including the
last three republican presidents, why
would you reverse more than 50 years of u.s. trade policy? >> the tpp is a horrible deal, a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. it's a deal that was designed
for china to come in, as they always do, through the back door, and totally take advantage of everyone. it's 5,600 pages long. so complex that nobody's read it. like obamacare. nobody ever read it. they passed it, nobody read it. and look at mess we have right now, and it will be repealed. but this is one of the worst trade deals, and i would, yes, rather not have it. with all of these countries and all of the bad ones getting advantage and taking advantage of what the good once would normally get, i'd rather make individual deals with individual countries. we will do much better. we lose a fortune on trade. the united states loses with everybody. we're losing now over $500 billion in terms of imbalance
with china. $75 billion a year in balance with japan. by the way, mexico, $50 billion a year imbalance. so i must say, gerard, it's a terrible deal. i love trade. i'm a free trader, 100%, but we need smart people make the deals and don't have smart people making the deals. moderator: the deal, as you say, the terms of the deal were published just last week. the detailed 5,000 pages of it, and 80% of u.s. trade with countries in the pacific, the 11 countries, is tariff free, and the trade deal affects the other 20%. are there particular parts of the deal? >> yes, if you look at the way china and india and almost everybody takes advantage of the united states, china in particular, because they're so good. the number one abuser of this country. if you look at the way they
take advantage, it's through currency manipulation. it's not even discussed in the almost 6,000 page agreement. not even discussed. you understand very well from the "wall street journal," currency manipulation is the single great weapon people have. they don't even discuss it in this agreement. so i say it's a very bad deal, should not be approved. if it is approved, it will be more bad trade deals. more loss of jobs for our country. we are losing jobs like nobody's lost jobs before. i want to bring jobs back into this country. >> gerard, we might want to point out china is not part of this deal. true, it's true. [applause] moderator: isn't that part of the problem, as i say, senator, if this deal is not ratified by the u.s. senate, then it would actually give china an opportunity to grow its economic leadership, which it's
been seeking to do, and if the u.s. is unable to take part in the trade deal with asia, china will take the lead. >> there is an argument china doesn't like the deal. in us doing the deal we will be trading with competitors, you are exactly right. we missed the point a little bit here. there is an important point how we discuss the trade treaties. we should negotiate from a position of strength, and also should negotiate using the full force and the constitutional power that was given to us. i think it's a mistake that we give up power to the presidency on these trade deals. we give up the power to filibuster, and i'm kind of fond of that power. [ laughter ] >> we give up the power to amend. one of the problems we have in our country, over the last century, really, so much power has gravitated to the executive branch, congress is a bystander. we don't write the rules. we don't make the laws. the executive branch does. even in trade, and i am for trade, i think we should be careful about giving so much
big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. this holiday season, gewhat's in the trunk? nothing. romance. 18 inch alloys. you remembered. family fun. everybody squeeze in. don't block anyone.
go to facebook and type #gopdebate into the search box. now back to the questions. americans face security threats at home and abroad. last year, terrorists attacks rose 61% according to the institute for economics and peace. with the most deaths occurring in just five countries -- iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, nigeria and syria. dr. carson, you were against putting troops on the ground in iraq. and against a large military force in afghanistan. do you support the president's ops forces in syria and leave 10,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan? >> well, putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there because they -- that's why they're called special ops, they're actually able to guide
some of the other things that we're doing there, and what we have to recognize is that putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the middle east. this is going to be his base. and we have to oppose him there and in effective way. we also must recognize it's a very complex place. you know the chinese are there as well as the russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. what we've been doing so far is very ineffective. but we can't give up ground right there. but we have to look at this on a much more global scale. we're talking about global jihadists, and their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. so we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers, that's the way they're able to gather a lot of influence, and i think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. and you look for the easiest place to do that, it would be in iraq.
outside of anbar in iraq there's a big energy field. take that from them, take all of that land from them, we could do that, i believe, fairly easily, i've learned from talking to several generals, and you move on from there, but you have to continue to face them because our goal is not to contain them but to destroy them before they destroy us. [ applause ] >> we asked facebook to take a look at some of the major issues we're talking about and tackling in this debate tonight. this word cloud shows what people are focusing on the most. the bigger the word, the more the talk. one of the most discussed issues in the last month, homeland security. governor bush, what is the biggest threat facing america today? >> it is, i'd say it is islamic terrorism, and back to the question of what we are dealing with in iraq, when we pull back, voids are filled. that's the lesson of history. and sadly this president does
not believe in american leadership. he does not believe it, the net result is we have a caliphate the size of indiana that gains energy each and every day to recruit americans in our own country, and the threat to the homeland relates to the fact we have not dealt with the threat of terror in the middle east. we should have a no-fly zone in syria. should have a support of remnants for the syrian free army and create safe zones. if you want to deal with the four million refugees that are leaving syria because of the devastation there, then we ought to create safe zones for them to stay in the region rather than go to europe, and that requires american leadership. without american leadership, every other country in the neighborhood begins to change their priorities. it is tragic that you see iraq and other countries now talking to russia. it wasn't that long ago, russia had no influence in the region at all. united states needs to lead across the board. this president and hillary clinton both do not believe that the united states has a leadership role to play, and
we're now paying a price, and it will have a huge impact on the economy of this country if we don't deal with this. [ applause ] >> thank you, sir. >> mr. trump, in a 2012 debate, president obama mocked mitt romney's assertion that russia was the top geopolitical challenge facing the united states. saying he was a cold war dinosaur. now russia has invaded ukraine and has put troops in syria. have you said that you will have a good relationship with mr. putin. so what does president trump do in response to russia's aggression? >> first of all, it's not only russia. we have problems with north korea, where they actually have nuclear weapons. nobody talks about it. we talk about iran and that's one of the worst deals ever made, one of the worst contracts ever signed, ever in anything. and 's aisgre. buwe he sobodyver ere, madn whalrey ha cleaweaps, wdon'talk abouthat
at's proem. ina a pblemconocall anwhat they're doing in the south china sea. they're becoming a
very, very major force. so we have more than just russia, but as far as the ukraine is concerned and you could say syria, as far as syria, i like if putin wants to go in, and i got to know him very well because we were both on "60 minutes," we were stable ll oism fo it% i t understand how anybody would be against that. >> they're not doing that. >> hold it. they blew up -- wait a minute. they blew up a russian airplane, he cannot be in love with these people. he's going in and we can go in and everybody should go. in as far as the ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including germany, tremendous economic behemoth. why are we always doing the work? we -- i'm all for protecting
ukraine and working, but we have countries that are surrounding the ukraine that aren't doing anything. they say keep going, keep going, you dummies. keep going, protect us, and we have to get smart. we can't continue to be the policeman of the world. we owe $19 trillion. we have a country that's going to hell. we have an infrastructure falling apart, our roads, bridges, our schools, our airports, and we have to start investing money in our country. [ applause ] >> donald is wrong on this, absolutely wrong on this. we're not going to be the world's policeman but better sure as heck being the world's leader. that's a huge difference. without us leading, voids are filled. and the idea that it's a good idea for putin to be in syria, let isis take out assad and putin will take out isis, that's like a board game. that's like playing monopoly or something. that's not how the real world works. we have to lead, be involved. we should have a no-fly zone in
syria. they are barrel bombing the innocents in that country. if you're a christian, increasingly in lebanon or iraq or syria, you're going to be beheaded. and if you're a moderate islamist, you're not going to be able to survive either. we have to play a role in this to be able to bring the rest of the world to this issue before it's too late. >> assad is a bad guy, but we have no idea who the so-called rebels, i read about the rebels, nobody knows who they are. i spoke to a general two weeks ago, he was very up on exactly what we're talking about. said he you know mr. trump, we're giving hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment to these people. we have no idea who they are. so i don't like arc assad, who's going to like assad. they may be far worse than assad. look at libya. look at iraq. look at mess we have after spending $2 trillion, thousands
of lives, wounded warriors all over the place, who i love. all over. we have nothing. and i said keep the oil, and we should have kept the oil, believe me. we should have kept the oil. and you know what? we should have given the oil, we should have given big chunks to the people that lost their arms, their legs and their families and their sons and daughters because right now, you know who has a lot of that oil? iran and isis. >> you know mr. trump fancies himself a very good negotiator. i accept he's done a lot of good deals. mr. trump ought to know we should not speak to people from a position of weakness. senator paul should know that as well. one of the reason i've said i would not be talking to vladimir putin right now, although i have met him as well, not in a green room for a show, but in a private meeting. [ laughter ] >> one of the reasons i said i wouldn't be talking to vladimir
putin right now is because we are speaking to him in a position of weakness brought on by this administration. i wouldn't talk to him for a while, but i would do this, rebuilding the six fleet under his nose. rebuild the missile defense system in poland under his nose. conduct very aggressive military exercises in the baltic states so he understood we would protect our nato allies and would-be allies and might put a few thousand troops into germany, not to start a war but make sure putin understands the united states will stand with our allies. that is why governor bush is correct, we must have a no-fly zone in syria because russia cannot tell the united states of america where and when to fly our planes. we also have a set of allies -- [ applause ] >> we have a set of allies in the middle east who asked us specifically over and over again to support them.
king abdullah of jordan asked us for bombs and materiale, we have not provided it. the egyptians are asking to share intelligence, we are not. i will. the kurds have asked us to arm them for three years. we're not. i would. the egyptians, the saudis, the kuwaitis, the bahrainies, the emrauties, the kurds, all of these people i know by the way understand isis is their fight, but must see leadership, support and resolve from the united states of america -- >> let me follow up. >> the strongest military on the face of the planet and everyone has to know it. [applause]
>> i'd like to respond. i think it is naive and foolish this think we're not going to talk to russia, idea of a no-fly zone. is something hillary clinton rfrees, you are asking for a no-fly zone in which russia already flies, russia flies in the zone at the invitation of iraq. i am not saying it is a good thing, but you better know what you are getting into. when you think it is a good idea, when you have a no-fly zone over iraq, realize, what you are saying it we're going to shoot own russian planes, if if you do, that you should be ready to send your sons and daughters to war. you can be strong without being involved in every civil war in the world. moderator: how would you respond?
>> ronald reagan was stock. >> ronald reagan walk away. >> can i finish my time. >> why don't you keep interrupting. >> i would like to finish my response. this is an important question. the question goes to be, who do we want to be our commander in chief, do you want a commander in chief that says somethingy never did throughout the entire cold war to discontinue having conversation with the russians? i am not happy about them tbrying oveflying over there. that is naive to the point of being something you might hear in junior high. but it is scary -- -- >> not going to stopped, what would yours be? >> i would not arm our
enemies, i would not arm isis. most of the people who want to the no-fly zone favored arming the allies of al qaeda, that became isis, that of the the dumbest notion, most of the people up here supported, they wanted to arm the allies of a al qaeda some still do, the first thing you don't, don't arm your enemies. >> i need to add a couple points. i never met vladimir putin. but i know enough about him to know he is a gangster. he is an organized crime figure that runs the country, is using to build up his military in a rapid way disby the fact his economy is a disaster. every time he is acted in the world. whether in ukraine or georgia before, now in middle east, she testing their weakness, he is seen what the president has
done, nothing, the president has no strategy, our allies in the region do not trust us, there is only one pro american preenterprise democracy in the middle east, it is the state of israel, we have a president that treats prime minister of israel with less respect than he gives the ayatollah. vladimir putin is efloyding that weakness, for purposes of edging the americans out. we do have a vested interest, all radical terrorist groups that are not just in syria and iraq, isis is in libya and afghanistan, and a growing present in pakistan, soon they will be in turkey, they will try jordan and saudi arabia, they are coming to us, they recruit americans using social media, wee they hate us because of our values, they hate us because our girls go to school, because women drive in the u.s., either they win or we win, we better take this
risk seriously, it is not going away on its own. moderator: governor kasich, go china, in particular hundreds of american company have been subjected to cyberattacks, yet state-backed chinese company, chinese investment in u.s., that were nearly nonnic sis tan a few years ago are now over 50 billion dollars, and chinese companies be plans to bid for one of the large of hotel in the u.s., would you stop them? mr. >> mr. baker, we have the ability make it clear to people, if you attack us with cyberattacks we'll destroy the mechanisms you are using to attack us. i served on defense committee
for 18 years, in the ukraine, armed people there to fight for themselves, in the eastern part of europe, make sure that finland and the baltics know if the russians move we move in syria, yes, no-fly zone, and north on turkish border, and no-fly zone on south on jordanian border, anyone flies in first time, maybe they did can fly out, a second time they will not fly out. saudi arabia, cut off the funding for the radical clerics. the ones that preach against us but family our friends. egypt, they have been aural -- our ally and a moderating force in middle east throughout history. the cleveland clinic is opening an operation we see the same with them, and in
israel, we have no better ally in the world, no more criticizing them in public, we should support them, and china, china thank you not own the south china sea, i give the president some credit for move a naval force in there to let the chinese know we're not going to put up with it any more, and tpp it is critical to us, not only for economy reasons and jobs. a lows to us create not only economy alliances but also potentially strategic alliances against the chinese. they are not our enemy, they are not our friend. and finally, i will say to everyone in this room, we have been talking about taxes and economics. when the fall comes, and we run against hillary clinton, which will be a disaster if she got elected. i have two 16-year-old girls, i want this country to be strong. we make promises we can't keep
under the bright light of the fall we will be in trouble. our military programs and economy programs must be solid am we got the budget balanced in ohio, as ceo, guess what we have to have a ceo mentality and a way to beat hillary clinton and the democracies in the fall,ure ideas have to add up and be solid, people have to know we have the confidence to lead america, as president, i will lead this country, as i have before in washington and in ohio, and will return both on domestic and international affairs. i appreciate the opportunity to speak this time. >> thank you, governor. moderator: look at the time, you are watching fox business, we'll take a break. stick around.
big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com.
the one in 2008, she would not bailout the banks. would you? >> we should not have another financial crisis, we should raise the capital requirement so banks are not too big to fail, dodd-frank has done the opposite, barges now have higher construction of risk and assets and capital requirements are not high enough, we would raise capital requirement and lessen the load on community banks this visit overreach create a huge problem for our country, and hillary clinton wants to double down on that. i was in washington, iowa, talking about how bad washington, d.c. is, get -- anyway. we had i talked with a banker there, a bank with $125 million of assets, four branches, their compliance cost because of dodd-frank went from $100,000 to $600,000
in two years, they had not one loan that went bad during the financial crisis. they gave back to the community, they were engaged in the community, and imagine, america without its community banks. that is what is happening because of dodd-frank, that is my worry, my worry is that real economy has been hurt by vast overreach of obama administration, and hillary clinton wants to double down on that, create more so, she is a captive of the left her party to the point now where she was for the trade agreement ins -- pacific agreement, now she against it. she was for the xl pipeline, now she is opposed. she is doubling down against it. moderator: you can't seriously guarantee there will not be there are financial crisis. >> you could if you are serious. moderator: never? >> i can't say that. but if you create a higher capital requirement that is
the solution, not having construction of assets issue bigger banks have more and more control over the financial assets of this country what is the wrong approach to take. moderator: on that point, dr. carson. the major banks in u.s., many of them are bigger than ever. asset held by jpmorgan chase for example. having increased by 40%, over $2 .6 trillion, do you think swroarg swroarj.p. morgan and other big banks should be broken up. >> we should have policies that do not allow them to enlarge themselves at second penc-- at the expense of smaller entities. makes it easy for the big corporations. that these very interest rating to buyback their stock. and to 35 the price of that up, artificially, those are things that led to the problem
in first place. and i think this all really gets back to the whole regulation issue. which is creating a very abnormal situation. this country was declared its independents in 1776, and less than 100 years, it was a number one economic power in the world. and reason was because we had an atmosphere that encouraged entrepreneurial risk taking and capital investment, those are the fuels that drive it. what we've done now is let the creep of regulation turn into a stampede of regulations that is involved in every aspect of our lives, if we can get that out if makes a big difference, even for the average person, every regulation costs money. and it is shifted to the individual. so -- it hurts the poor and the middle class more than the rich. they go to store they buy a
bar of soap it costs 10 cents more they notice it. middle class they have a whole cart of things that cost more they notice it, bernie sanders and hillary clinton will not tell you what is what hurting middle class, they say it is the rich, take their money, that does not help, you can take all of the rich's money that will not make a dent we have to come back to fundamental principles this made america great. moderator: to be clear, you would not favor breaking up the big banks? they are okay? >> i would have policies that would not allow that to occur. i don't want to go in and tear anybody down. that does not help us, but what does help us, stop tinkering around the edges and fix problem that exist that are creates problem. >> he is right on point, you know why the banks are so big. the government made them big,
by adding thousands of papes of regulation, the big bank have an army of lawyers, and compliance officer they can deal with this the small banks, they can't deal with the regulations, they can't deal with -- they cannot hire the fanciest law firm in washington or best lobbying firm to deal the regulations, so result is, big banks get bigger, small banks strug told lend or exist, and result is what you have today, in dod dodd-frank you codified too big to fail, we created a category. and these banks go around bragging about it do you know when they say to people with a wink and a nod, we're so important that if we get in trouble the government has to bail us out, this an outrage. >> let me say, gary, also, say. jeb is talking about with the big banks, force them to reserve their capital, people who invest they hold their capital. so that if bank goes down, the people who are invested in the
bank are those that pay. that is what he is trying to say, secondly, i tell but wall street, there is too much greed. and fact is, a free enterprise system, is a system that is produced a greatest wealth for the world, you know michael novak, said this if free enterprise system that is not under lays with values, we should think about the way we conduct our lives, it is great. profits are great, but there have to be some vales that yo values that under lay it, a need a good ethic lesson on wall street on a regular bases to keep them in check so we the people do not lose. >> senator cruz -- >> senator cruz othat, facebook at tha status show over last month, 1 million people, have been concerned about reins in wall street believing that some have not been punished enough.
so, as an accomplice litigate or yourself. would you go after the very people who believe and fear that wall street has ignored? in other words, the crooks. that bernie sanders say have gotten away with a financial murder. >> absolutely, yes. i have spent much of my adult life enforcing the law, and defending th the constitutions, the problem that under lies this is cronyism of washington. opening question that jerry asked, would you bailout the big banks again. no one gave you an answer, i will, absolutely not. what we have right now is we have washington, as government gets bigger and bigger. the biggest lie in washington and politics that republicans are party of rich, the rich do great with big government they
get in bed with big government, the big banks get bigger and bigger with dodd-frank, and community banks are going out of business, the consequence of that is small business can't gettings loans, this is why 6 of 10 wealthiest county in america are in and around washington dc. >> some weeks ago. a woman names sabina testified at a hearing i chaired in the senate, she is an african-american single mom, who started a tax preparation business in the south side of chicago, she found a store front, he start a business but then irs, promulgated new regulations targeting tax preparers, under a more than 100 year or statute called the dead horse act thi sat suite anders -- sta statute had
exemptions for lawyers, and big fancy accountants but she had to pay over a thousand. she sued irs, to court, she won they struck down the rule for picking the gig guys over the little guys. moderator: i want to be clear, are you saying, that if a bank of america were on the brink, you would let it fail? >> yes, let's be clear, there is a role for federal reserve, what the fed is doing now. a series of philosopher kings trying too guess what is happening with the economy. you look at fed, one reason we have financial crashes through out the 2000s, we had loose money, we had an asset bubble, that drive up the price of real estate. in 2008, the fed tightened that money, crashing those
prices causing a cascading collapse, i am back to getting rules based monetary system not with a bunch of philosopher king -- -- king. >> i understan -- >> i understand, that i just want to be clear. if it were it happen again, whatever the reason, you would let it go? you would let a bank of america go. >> let me be clear, i would not bail them out, but instead of adjusting monetary policy according to wims. what fed should be doing is number one. keeping our money tied to a stable level of goal, and serving as linder of last resort. that is what central banks do. if you have a run on the bank, fed can serve as a lender of last resort, it not a bailout. it is a loan at higher interest rates. that is how central banks have worked. we have a gold standard, for
about 170 years of our nation's history, and enjoyed booming economy growth and lower inflation than we had with the fed now, we need to get back to sound money which helps in particular working men and women. what washington does, people who are doing well in the obama economy are those with power and influence in the obama government. >> that is difference of being a executive, when a bank is ready to go under. you just don't say we believe in philosophical concerns. you know what an executive has to decide, when there is a water crisis, how do we get water to the city? a school shooting how do you get there? when there are financial crisis, a crisis with ebola you have to fix it. philosophy does not work when you run something. i have to tell you, on the job
training for president of the united states does not work, we've done it for 8 years, almost 8 years it does not work. we need an economyive who ha -- executive who has been tried and tested. i don't like what the fed is doing, but i tell you what worried me more, turning fed to congress. moderator: thank you governor. >> that would be a bad approach. moderator: senator rubio. >> why would you bailout rich wall street banks but not mom and pop, you just said -- >> i did not say that. >> they were talking did you would do with depositors would you let the banks shut down, my argument is going forward, banks have to reserve capital, so that people who own the capital start to pressure the barges to not take the risky approaches, ted, but at the end of the day -- >> you said -- abandon principle what would you do if
the bank was failing? >> i would not let the people who put their money in there all go down. >> i would bail them out. >> no, i would figure out how to separate these people who can afford it versus those who are hard working folks who put money in -- wait, wait. here is what i mean. when you are faced in the last financial crisis with banks going under, and people, people who put their life savings in there, you have to deal with it, you can't turn a blind eye to it going forward one thing. if you had another financial crisis. moderator: thank you. >> can i say as chief economyive who had to make tough calls to save jobs and grow jobs, what since rifting about dodd-frank is that great example of how socialism starts, sober amis socialism
starts when government creates a problem then steps in to solve the problem, government created the problem of a real estate boom. how did we create it, under republican and democrats alike, fannie mae and freddie mac, everyone gathered, republicans and democrats said homeownership is part of the american dream let's create a bubble, then government stepped in under president george w. bush, banks were told,e told to buy other banks to take money, now we have with dodd-frank, the big have gotten bigger. we created something called a consumer financial production bureau with no congressional oversight that is digging through hundreds of million of your credit record to detect fraud, this is how socialism starts, we must take our government back.
: good. very good. you see something moving off the shelves and your first thought is to investigate the company. you are type e*. yes, investment opportunities can be anywhere... or not. but you know the difference. e*trade's bar code scanner. shorten the distance between intuition and action. e*trade opportunity is everywhere.
. moderator: welcome back to the fourth republican presidential debate. senator rubio, hillary clinton is the clear front-runner for the democratic nomination. if she is indeed the nominee, you will be facing a candidate with an impressive resume. she was the first lady of the united states -- [ booing ] . moderator: u.s. senator from
new york, certainly more time in government than almost all of you on stage tonight. why should the american people trust you to lead this country even though she has been so much closer to the office? >> well, that's a great question. and let me begin by answering it. [ laughter ] >> this election is about the future, about what kind of country this nation is going to be in the 21st century. this election is actually a generational choice. a choice about what kind of nation we will be in the 21st century. for over, the one place on earth a nation that's been a force for good on this planet. but now growing number of americans feel out of place in their own country. we have a society that stigmatizes those that hold values traditional. millions of people are living paycheck to paycheck, working
harder than they have, but the economy has changed underneath their feet. young americans who owe thousands in student loans for a degree that doesn't lead to a job. for the first time in 35 years, more businesses dying than starting, and around the world every day brings news of a new humiliation for america, many, the direct consequence of decisions made when hillary clinton was secretary of state. the democratic party and the political left has no ideas of the fewer. all the ideas are the same tired ideas of the past. more spending, more government, their answer is a new tax on someone and new government program. this nation is going to turn the page, and that's what this election should be about, and as i said at the first debate, if i am our nominee, they'll be the party of the past. we will be the party of the 21st century. [applause]