tv Bulls Bears FOX Business March 18, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT
just terrible flooding. something to see. susan: some bad weather in the last few weeks. bomb cyclones. connell: that's true. it does always seem like something. thanks for joining us. you're with us all week? susan: i am. connell: see you tomorrow. "bulls & bears" starts right now. david: the clock is ticking. president trump now demanding gm find a way to reopen one of its plants, urging the automaker and the union to come to the table right now. the pressure is on. this is "bulls & bears." i'm david asman. joining me in the panel, kristina partsinevelos, liz peek, jonathan hoenig and john layfield. the president racheting up his criticism of general motors. one of his tweets reading because the economy is so good, general motors must get their lordstown, ohio plant open, maybe in a different form or maybe with a new owner, fast. toyota is investing $13.5
billion in u.s., others likewise, gm must act quickly. the time is of the essence. should the president be telling gm what to do with its business? what do you think? >> clearly, he should not be telling gm what to do with their business. this plan has been under way for a long time. i think the president understands that a lot of his election was due to manufacturing people, working class people, deciding that he was their champion, he was going to push for higher employment in places like michigan. obviously a very important primary or very important toss-up state. so this is i think very political on his part, but it also is in line with his using his bully pulpit to encourage investment in the united states and further increase manufacturing. >> it's wrong. it's not just -- it's wrong. >> i said i didn't think he should do it. >> good. good. listen, this is wrong and it's
not government's role to order a company to open up any plant. government -- people are saying well, you know, it's just trump's opinion. look, trump isn't just any other guy with a twitter account. he is the president and government has a gun, they have a monopoly over the use of force. this is basically an implied threat and i tell you, it's how you know the president isn't really a free trader. how can you be against socialism when at the same time, from a twitter account, be demanding that a multinational company open up a particular plant? >> both of you are spot-on. this is essentially state intervention for political gain. we knew this was going to happen, the ceo of gm announced it in november. investors liked the news because they are cutting $6 billion, that's the goal, cutting $6 billion in costs by 2020 and they need to adapt to the new times. they said they are going to be working on electric vehicles and the sedan that's made in that plant in ohio isn't doing as well so i agree with the two of you, that this is a case where you have government intervention and yet we debate this all the
time about that being a bad thing, socialism being a bad thing and isn't this the same example? >> i agree. unfortunately, we got a lovefest on here. we all agree that the president has no business talking about private enterprise. i think the president needs a villainy tweet to go after on twitter. that's what the president enjoys doing. mar mary barra, who he had a disagreement with when she was on the economic council, he had little or no response to the charlottesville incident, but he needs a villain to go after. that's what he does. it's completely inappropriate. i think if a president had told him the economy is good right now, there's no reason for you to declare bankruptcy a few times in atlantic city, your kas nos casinos, he would have told the president i'm doing what's good for business and perhaps he was. mary barra is doing what's good for business now and the president has no right to tell her what to do. david: you say the president needs a villain. mary barra needs a villain, too. it's the uaw. she's blaming the uaw, she says
she's -- they are forcing her to do things she doesn't want to do to make it inefficient, she has to cut corners. we know the uaw has created all kinds of problems for the auto industry. some people blame the uaw for some of the closures of not just plants but entire companies. is there something there? >> well -- >> remembering back -- sorry, jonathan. go ahead. >> just look, uaw is the ones who got gm into the problem in the first place. yes, america bailed them out and violated the bondholders' rights, gave way too much power to the uaw, 10, 12 years ago now. but the answer isn't now to demand that gm act as some kind of wing of the u.s. government. let them fail. let them, as kristina said, have to readapt. no one wants these chevy cruzes. they have to adapt and produce or die. it's not the president's role to micromanage them and tell them
what to do. >> i think that's true. i also would add that i think president trump feels that he has gone to some lengths to help the big three with their emissions issues, that is to say, he scaled back the emissions requirements at their request so my guess is he's a little aggrieved that barra is not making a bigger effort to increase production, increase employment in this industry which he has really obviously championed. >> liz, i don't think you ever have to tell jonathan to go ahead. david: that's for sure. >> the problem is holding jonathan back. i love jonathan. i loved him for years. he's great tv. he's a smart guy. mary barra, she's there because she deserves to be there. she did a great job with the cars she debuted and she earned her way to the ceo role. gm has invested $20 billion since the financial crisis in
plants around the united states. this is simply a business decision. we bailed them out once because they weren't running as a good business, but running as a good business now, to me it should be left alone. david: let me play devil's advocate since you are all taking one side on this. talk about what's happened with toyota, with fiat, they are investing heavily in the united states right now. both of those companies, billions and billions of dollars. the argument, maybe the argument can be made that because of the fact gm was so heavily on the government payroll for so long, the government telling them what to do, that they got into all kinds of bad things they shouldn't have, precisely because of the government involvement back during the obama years. any truth to that? >> you are spot-on. this is what i wanted to bring up. let's talk about these other companies that are bringing jobs to america. you have the fact that fiat chrysler wants to invest roughly $4.5 billion. they are going to be adding 6500 jobs in michigan. david: toyota, even more than that. >> even more. i think the president tweeted out, i'm not sure his number is
accurate but you have other companies that are investing in the united states and i think you are right. i think in the past, what we saw with gm, there was influence and that's never a good thing when you have the government dictating your business moves. >> yeah. again, general motors had been investing in the united states. it's just that they decided to build a chevy volt and other cars people didn't want. a little bit, mary barra may be absolutely terrific, but this is a program that is basically rectifying past mistakes. during the financial crisis, we discovered that they were paying workers $80 per hour full in, including benefits, and i think most americans were horrified and scandalized by that and began to understand why the big three were not able to compete. there have been changes, so uaw made enormous concessions since then, but i mean, the only thing i would say about president trump's commentary here is it does seem amazing to me when business is booming, when unemployment is so low, why isn't anyone stepping up to use
these facilities in some way, shape or form? i can't understand that. >> well, we can't understand it because we are not in the business and neither is president trump. basically, they are the ones looking to exploit and make a profit. just as it's inappropriate for the president to tell a tv show what anchors they should put on, for example, it's inappropriate for a president to tell a company what plant they should open or close. when we talk about a free economy, it's free from government intervention exactly like this. david: by the way, he did, the president did say specifically that if somebody can retool the plant, if somebody else can buy it, get that going right away and it's not just the facilities, by the way. more important than that is the human capital. those people work hard in that plant. we talk to people all the time from ohio, they are talking about how hard those people work to come out with premium products. isn't there some way you could retool that factory, get them
working on something? >> too bad amazon didn't want to go there. >> there you go. >> no, no. you have to think of the talent. they are going to argue they are looking for certain tech people. david: i have to ask finally, you broached the subject, liz, about whether or not this is all politics, all about ohio. is that what's going on here? >> well, i don't think it's just ohio. i think it's michigan. i think it's all these states. president trump obviously is going to be pushing very hard between now and the election to convince people that the economy has a lot to do with the tax cuts and the deregulation efforts that he brought with him and the increase in manufacturing jobs. let's face it, it was a surprise and a pleasant surprise to almost everybody. i think that is really kind of the cornerstone of his campaign. i think we are going to hear a lot about it. david: meanwhile, democrat presidential candidate beto o'rourke is having success running as a capitalist but his surprising description of capitalism is raising eyebrows
means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. openturning 50 opens theuard. door to a lot of new things... like now your doctor may be talking to you about screening for colon cancer. luckily there's me, cologuard. the noninvasive test you use at home. it all starts when your doctor orders me. then it's as easy as get, go, gone. you get me when i'm delivered... right to your front door and in the privacy of your own home. there's no prep or special diet needed. you just go to the bathroom, to collect your sample. after that, i'm gone, shipped to the lab for dna testing that finds colon cancer and precancer.
cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer. ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. maybe i'll be at your door soon! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job.
what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. willy davis, who has alzheimer's. i decided to make shirts for the walk with custom ink. the shirts were so easy to design on the site.
the custom ink team was super helpful and they just came out perfect. seeing my family wearing my shirts was such an amazing reminder of all the love and support that everyone has for my dad. - [narrator] check out our huge selection of custom t-shirts and more, for teams, businesses, and every occasion. you'll even get free shipping. get started today at customink.com. david: beto o'rourke is smashing records, raising a massive $6.1 million in his first 24 hours as a democrat presidential candidate. that figure beating bernie sanders and every other 2020 candidate so far who has disclosed their figures. unlike sanders, though, beto says he's running as a capitalist, but and it's a big but, he says capitalism as it stands now is unjust and racist. listen. >> i think the only way to meet some of these historic challenges is to be able to use its engine of capitalism. won't be government intervention
or policy alone that makes it possible. now, having said that, it is clearly an imperfect, unfair, unjust and racist capitalist economy. david: so gang, what do we make of this? >> i disagree. look, i think capitalism around the globe right now has erased extreme poverty from the mid 30% range to around 11% because of the spread of capitalism. i have done a lot of work with poverty around the world. kristina was kind enough to donate to the building fund in malawi, thank you very much for that. when you look at extreme poverty areas, it looks racist but it's more socioeconomic. you look at areas that you have extreme poverty, most of it is minorities but there are also white areas. the inequality comes from those socioeconomic levels because schooling is bad, the opportunities are bad. it's too easy to say it's racist. it's really a socioeconomic
issue. >> to that point, there is research that shows the divide still exists. if i'm going to look at it as a race issue, you see a lot of political leaders running on that platform, racial equality. the economic policy institute said white families make 86 times the amount of wealth compared to black families. 68 times the amount of wealth compared to latino families. here you have a wealthy politician running on a populist message. sound familiar? >> excuse me, i think it all has to do with beto having to fight back charges of white privilege, being a white male at a time when the democratic party is looking for a person of color and probably a female to head the ticket. you know, he has already had to apologize for white privilege and talk about how yes, he certainly should have a female on the ticket. i think this is just pandering to all the groups who basically might oppose him for that issue. >> there's just a complete lack
of comprehension of even what capitalism is. we heard it from aoc a couple weeks ago but she thought capitalism is, i don't know what beto thinks it is. we are talking about private property and individual rights, not preferences for any racial minority or any group. i think that's a big misnomer, we have a capitalist paradise today if beto wants to make it more fair. we have tariffs and subsidies. beto just wants it for his group. this is the same type of mixed economy, some elements of capitalism and some elements of socialism. beto will decide where those chips are distributed for his behalf. david: the racism charge is particularly strange. there are certainly capitalists who are racist, no doubt. but that doesn't mean that capitalism is racist. by itself, capitalism doesn't necessarily take a stance in terms of racism, does it? have i got it wrong? i don't know. >> in fact, just the contrary, the marketplace is anonymous.
that's what is good about the marketplace as opposed to government intervention, which always turns out to be biased in favor of one group or another. by the way, i think beto understands capitalism just fine. after all, he has a very wealthy stepfather. he's made some money. when he's raising $6 million, i think he gets it. >> of course he gets it. to john's point, john layfield, he was spot on. look at the socioeconomic difference, the widening gap, which i think beto should be addressing specifically like that as opposed to race. however, race as a subject for politicians, many of these polls show resonates with younger voters or resonates with voters in general, which is why i think he's bringing it up. like you mentioned, according to the texas tribune, in october, he was worth, beto o'rourke, anywhere between $2.5 million and $16 million. >> i just think -- to look at people and categorize them by their race to me is racist. to say well, black people make this and white people make this,
we need to equalize this, to me, that is racist. perpetuating racism. to liz's point, real capitalism is the antithesis of racism. it's judging people by their actions and ideas, not by their skin color, race or tribe. that's true capitalism. >> i think when you look at the judicial inequality, it does skew toward a racial bias. you have so many more black and hispanic youth locked up compared to whites. it is a ridiculous number as far as -- >> what does that have to do with capitalism, though, john? >> you talk about it being racist -- >> what does that have to do with capitalism? >> if you let me finish, i will get to it. because these guys come from a socioeconomic level, it looks racist but to me it's more socioeconomic. these inner cities you have around our country, whatever they are populated with, whatever race they are populated with, politicians don't care. if you want to fix the system, fix the education system in our inner cities. you take all these kids in the suburbs, put them in the inner cities and i guarantee those parents in the suburbs will fix
the inner city schools within a couple years. david: by the way, one other thing that needs to be mentioned is the fact we now have lower unemployment among minority communities than ever before. that's as we have become slightly more capitalist in john thanes w johnathan's way of looking at the world. but we have had greater employment in minority communities. that's a good thing. no? >> that is definitely a good thing. to john's point, the issues that divide, that create wealth divides and divides in unemployment and things like that don't have to do with the system of our economy. it has to do with education and other socioeconomic factors which politicians basically don't want to address because they are so afraid of offending somebody and in particular, the teachers' unions. that's where -- if someone wants real change, that's where it has
to start. >> quickly, as to what john said, if you are concerned about poor people, you should be for capitalism. because capitalism is the only thing, charity, that is the only thing that's lifted people out of poverty. >> that's an extremist view, that every single charity out there not for profit is useless because they don't help any of these people get out of it. that was just a blanket statement that was just too generalized. i think you are wrong. i think with liz's point, education is a great avenue but you have to look at housing. i know we will talk about that later in the show. is that not an issue we need to address so that people, if you look at what is it, the hierarchy of needs, we need housing -- go ahead, john. >> sorry, before we have to go to break, i got to answer that. look up beyond rugby bermuda. we have kept kids out of jail, at-risk kids, the most at-risk kids you will see, we kept them
out of jail, kept them in school and got them employed because of a charity. you can't say all charities are bad, jonathan. i agree with capitalism. i agree with you on that part. david: i got to say, mother theresa is a saint now for a reason. just wanted to put that out there. thank you, gang. the president is now slamming google over reports the tech giant is aiding china in their military. coming up next, retired four-star general and fox news senior strategic analyst jack keane is here to sound off. >> the tech industry has lost its way. these companies have sold their souls. google is supposed to be the company that did no evil. all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better.
maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. (butcher) we both know you're not just looking for pork chops. you're searching for something more... ...red-blooded. right this way. you thirst for adrenaline, you hunger for raw power. well, you've come to the right place. the road is yours, dig in. might mean a trip back to the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there when you can stay home
with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.
cme group can help you navigate risks and capture opportunities. we enable you to reach global markets and drive forward with broader possibilities. cme group - how the world advances. ♪ david: president trump taking aim at google, tweeting this over the weekend. quote, google is helping china and their military but not the u.s. terrible. the good news is that they helped crooked hillary clinton and not trump and how did that turn out. the president responding to this
warning from the nation's top general. we first played this for you last week. >> the work that google is doing in china is indirectly benefiting the chinese military. we watched with great concern when industry partners work in china knowing that there is that indirect benefit and frankly, indirect may be not a full characterization of the way it really is. it's more of a direct benefit to the chinese military. david: google denies these claims, issuing this statement. quote, we are not working with the chinese military. we are working with the u.s. government, including the department of defense, in many areas including cybersecurity, recruiting and health care. end quote. retired four star general and fox news senior strategic analyst jack keane joins us now. general, can we trust google? >> well, i would want to think we could. but i'm a little stunned by what's taken place here. certainly google's got a right to decide, you know, what kind
of businesses they want to pursue and they pulled out of the competition for the pentagon's cloud operation and also they pulled out of a capability to improve the analysis of videos from our drones, the imaging from them. they've got a right to do that. but what stunned me is what followed. they said they pulled out of it because those endeavors are not in line with their corporate values. and they were responding to employees' requests that google no longer work for the defense department or give assistance to the defense department to pursue war-like activities. that, i find quite remarkable given the fact that it's america's values that have permitted google to thrive and prosper. america's values that are defended by the united states military, i may say. so it's sort of a stunning
comment and i think they entered into a bit of a public relations nightmare for themselves here. >> do you find, though, this is just an example, we were talking about gm earlier -- >> who am i talking to? >> this is kristina partsinevelos. when you talk about government intervention and the president weighing in on gm, wasn't this almost a very similar situation where you have the president speaking in third person while he tweets that google should have been involved or should be helping out the u.s. military, but my question for you, general, is, does this show that maybe google doesn't trust the government to do right with its technology? >> well, i don't know what they would base that on. i don't know what the track record that you are alluding to here, that somehow we do what with the technology? >> yeah, but if they didn't go -- >> let me finish. you're stepping on me. if you take the technology that the defense industry provides to the united states and specifically here to the
military, obviously we use that technology to protect america's national interests so what's the misuse? >> think of the situation -- this is your specialty, not mine, but if you misuse drone technology, the abuses, again, i don't know all the details but i'm asking you, possibly could that be a concern from the company? >> give me a single abuse of drone technology. >> like i said, you are the expert in it. i am not. therefore, i didn't -- >> why are you mentioning it, then? >> if you are not going with the corporate values and they are scared the u.s. government is going to use their technology for purposes that may not be in the best interests of what they believe is right, is that a concern? that's pretty much showing that maybe google doesn't trust what the government could do with its technology. that's what i'm asking you. >> i have no idea. i know what we do with drone technology. it protects america's interests. i guess you are assuming, you are alluding to the fact that on occasion, drones have misfired
and have killed innocent civilians on the battlefield, just as soldiers have killed innocent civilians on the battlefield, just as normal kinetic bombs killed innocent civilians on the battlefield. there is no country in the world, by the way, that takes more pain to avoid civilian casualties. this country never points its weapons intentionally at civilians. we absolutely avoid that while china, on the other hand, points its weapons at civilians on a regular basis. >> general -- >> it's jonathan hoenig. >> general, john layfield here. i got the pleasure of you hosting me along with sergeant major in the pentagon several years ago. been a big admirer of you ever since. proud to have you on the show. i want to ask a question about google as far as china. where would you draw that line, you have a tech company that obviously can be misused if you have technology being stolen. where would you draw that line as far as businesses, especially tech companies, doing business in china?
>> well, i think that the whole china affair is one that comes into question now. you know, we made a terrible strategic bet, most people in this country 25 years ago, when they opened up china economically, and america's business rushed in there certainly and our government was encouraging let's help capitalize china, certainly, let's get them into a market-based society if possible, and with the hope that political reform would follow that. we lost that bet. this is a more authoritarian regime, more repressive than it's ever been. president xi has more power than any successor has had. what they have done with american businesses and why there is so much concern with it, to do business with them you have to enter into a joint venture with them and it's at that point they are able to
undermine and take intellectual property. clearly, they are the most prolific data consumer in terms of cyberhacking in the world. they take our intellectual property, they take some of our most guarded secrets that we have in this country. number two, they get intelligence. number three, they take personal data. anybody that's involved with china and trying to pursue information technology with them i think you've got to have a huge amount of skepticism regardless of what china says they're going to do with it, they are going to steal it. that's the track record. >> general, it's liz peek. my understanding is that china and the united states are neck and neck in developing a.i., not just for commercial use but also for military use. can we actually get to where we need to be to maintain our lead here without google, or do you think google's involvement is absolutely essential? >> i don't know. that's beyond my expertise.
i don't know what their competitors can or can't do. i will say this. i strongly suspect that china's ahead of us in artificial intelligence pursuit just as they are ahead of us in hypersonic weapons. just for our viewers who may not understand this, russia and china have caught the united states in terms of the technological advantage that we have had. they have stealth technology, advanced electronic warfare. i could go on and on. they have passed us in certain capabilities, so much so, pay attention to what i'm about to say, that our military leaders and the commission i have been on for over a year, congressional commission on the national defense strategy have said we would struggle today to fight a war against russia and china and we could actually even lose. that has been codified by our senior military leaders as well. the good thing is trump defense
is bringing us out of this hole, much as the reagan defense budget brought is out of a hole in the 1980s. david: general, we got to leave it at that. we have run out of time. we are lucky to have you with us. thank you very much. >> good talking to you guys. david: great to talk to you. elizabeth warren pitching a $500 billion program to fix what she's calling a housing crisis. wait until you hear how she's going to pay for it, next.
a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast.
david: presidential hopeful elizabeth warren says we are in the midst of a housing crisis and we need to spend a lot of taxpayer money to fix it, saying her new housing plan unveiled over the weekend will require $500 billion over the next ten years paid for by more estate taxes on the wealthy. would a $500 billion public housing plan solve our housing problems? what do you think? >> i don't think it would. look, i'm all for affordable
housing. i'm not sure we can afford any more taxes out there. we have an obligation as a society to take care of those in the lower income level, those that have affluence should be able to do that. that's justifiable. the problem is how you do it. the cra act, community reinvestment act in the early 1990s that was -- that told banks you need to inflate falsely the home ownership rate so banks went out and had to loan money to people that they knew would not pay them back. the banks offloaded that risk and created the securitization market. the securitization market became the casino, that became the financial crisis, worst crisis since the great depression was caused by the cra act. you have to be careful how you do this. >> for elizabeth warren, anyone's need is a crisis. anyone has a need, that's a crisis, we need more taxes on the wealthy, more government controls. the truth is in all these places where there is a so-called housing crisis it's always the responsibility of government. in san francisco, in seattle,
for example, these nimby laws that restrict development, that restrict buildings over two or three levels in height. this is another reason for elizabeth "you didn't build that" warren to take more of the money people have earned and already paid taxes on. >> jonathan, let's talk about that so-called housing crisis. while researching for this panel discussion, i came across one report that came from the national low income housing coalition and there's a beautiful graph that shows for every 100 people, how many houses are available in particular states. if we could show that graph, you can see the red that is across the country and just various examples you are seeing, now we changed the colors but it was red on there. but yellow being the most severe. for example, orlando, for every 100 people there's only 20 affordable and available rental homes. this is a continuous problem. the question is how do you go about improving the situation. is it going after that death tax that elizabeth warren wants to increase, which over the past more than 15 years, has gone
from $675,000 threshold to now $11.2 million threshold. it's definitely changed over the last 15 years. is that the answer? i think we could address the problem first. is there a housing crisis. it's affordability. >> i think it's interesting to note that one of the things she takes on and talks about is indeed the impediments to building affordable housing in states like california, where they have thrown up enormous zoning issues and environmental issues and so forth. >> exactly. >> it's sort of like she's trampling on states' rights here. i would think there's going to be blowback from communities who basically will respond by saying hey, we know what's best for our community, hands off. we don't need the federal government coming in and telling us how to manage our communities. i think, honestly, this is a much more complex issue than will be solved by just throwing even hundreds of billions of dollars at it, because you have communities who really don't want affordable housing.
you also have in terms of home ownership problems creating stickiness, people can't move to where affordable housing may exist and where there may in this tight environment also be jobs. there are lots of problems here. >> she doesn't want, elizabeth warren doesn't want to throw money at it. she wants to steal people's money. she wants to take money from people who have already earned it, already paid taxes on it and redistribute it. i know kristina maybe might say well, you know, they are wealthy and they are going to die and the heirs didn't earn it. >> okay. no. >> you know, i will just say it incentivizes people to spend their money, to essentially waste it, waste it away as opposed to keeping it in productive endeavors because they would rather buy that second yacht than have government get it after they're dead. >> well, we also do have a history of public housing and the history is not a good one. jonathan, you live in chicago. i used to teach at cabrini green, a housing project that had to be razed to the ground.
how many other cities had housing projects which ended up that way. the question is how you do it. >> well, the question is not just affordable housing. the question is like liz says. that doesn't solve the problem. look, in these lower income areas, the problem is generational issues, generational incarceration, generational drug use, generational pregnancy among young girls. the problems you have, you have to break these generational cycles. giving people a home while that can be very good and should be done in a lot of cases, that does not solve the issues as liz says. david: not easy. all right. a major u.s. city is now considering giving out free money. will this work where most others have failed? we debate that coming next. (bir) (bir) lots to do, hope you fuelled up. sure did. that storm sure ripped through. yep, we gotta fix that fence and herd the cattle back in.
let's get at it. (whistle) (dog barking) (♪) our grandparents checked zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed. but ocuvite has vital nutrients... ...to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today.
tthis is the invitation to lexus sales event. lease the 2019 rx 350 for $399 a month for 36 months. now thru march 31st. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.
david: newark, new jersey joining a small group of cities in the u.s. planning to implement a universal basic income system. newark's mayor did not release any further plans for the program, including how much money citizens will get or how the program's going to be paid for. similar plans outside of the u.s. have failed so what makes this plan different, gang? >> david, it doesn't seem like much of anything makes this different. basically, this is just people being -- mayors and legislators
being at their wit's end trying to figure out how to get people to work. instead of getting them to work, they are going to hand out money. every bone in my body resists this idea. it seems to me the best welfare check has always been a good job. i can't imagine that this is going to prove beneficial in the long run. >> in fact, welfare hurts its recipients. that is what is so maddening. you were spot-on. i saw it in chicago basically from the 1960s through the 2000s. all that welfare has done is commit a disservice to its recipients. what it really does is destroys people's self-esteem. that's why so much of the ubi, universal basic income has been abandoned the last couple years. they want to do something about the unemployed in newark, what about getting rid of that minimum wage. newark has in many cases a $19 an hour minimum wage, highest in the country. that's a big disincentive for companies to go and hire those just starting out in their careers. >> david told us in the break to be short, pointed and eloquent.
i haven't kissed the blarney stone. from the south, i will tell you, this is ate up with stupid. this has never worked. it's not going to work. americans are not lazy. americans don't want a handout. americans want to work. to me, capitalism works in this case. >> i agree with you guys. i think we are all agreeing on this. this is handout free money, it would disincentivize people to get a job, it would lower the labor participation rate which we really don't need it to be any lower at this moment in time. plus, we talk about debt all the time. this would add to the government deficit just because you are paying for these services so i agree. how do you guys feel about the work requirement that was proposed? david, it seems to me this is the outgrowth of a mayor who has absolutely no idea how to attract businesses and jobs to newark. by the way, everything new jersey's doing in terms of raising income taxes and making
it more difficult for businesses to succeed in their state make this guy's suggestion sort of an inevitability. they can't create jobs, they can't put people to work so this is their idea. i think it's horrifying, honestly. david: our country does have a lot of these experiments going o are we just going to end up wasting a lot -- do we have to go through this process, do you think, or will it stop because of the examples overseas? >> it only stops after it's done again a huge disservice. you're not helping people by giving them a check. as i said, you are really doing them a disservice. you are making it more difficult for them not only to develop the skills but to develop the self-esteem. that's why these programs are really a terrible immorality for those who have their money extorted and those who have it given to them as well. david: if we did it nationwide, lot of people are suggesting a basic $10,000 salary for everybody, that would cost $3 trillion. that would be 70% of our entire budget.
i mean, it blows your mind up if you are worried about the debt at all. meanwhile, the tide turning, seems to be turning for congresswoman ocasio-cortez. why she is now being labeled a villain. that's next. naysayer said no one would subscribe to a car the way they subscribe to movies. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪
conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious. we don't follow conventional wisdom. ♪ ♪ david: a new poll shows 38% blame the fresh man congresswoman for am zob pulling out of the big apple. >> we have a situation where somebody has risen to popularity so quickly. and i respect all the politician on both sides of the panel. does she disrespect people who
disagree with her views? i wonder what this means for the democratic party? will there be a backlash to those going through the socialist left like her? or can people survive being a moderate democrat. i think she pushed everyone so far to the left, it will be hard for all the democrats running for president to backtrack on the green new deal. gallup shows she has huge negatives amongst most of of the nation aware of her. she charged into every corner of our political life and demanded attention, even when she didn't know the subject matter. she has come on too fast, too strong. if i were advising her, i would tell her to slow down, do her hope work and make sure she gets the stuff right.
just dismissing critics saying yeah they just want all the facts right, yeah, think do and she needs to take it easy. >> new york is a tough city. new york is not going to forgive that very easily. when you look nationwide, only 28% of our country believes in socialism. so of course she is becoming the villain. if she has a right to have a seat at the table, die ever gent views should be in congress. >> i wish there was more distaste for socialism. the idea that the owe the society and the needy and greater good. that's become mainstream right now. the on way i think the gop can counter aoc's message, i think she is winning.
and the word we talk about on this program. the on way to counter it is to talk about individualism. america is a place where you own your life. that's what makes this country unique and that's the message that can counter aoc. >> i think it's simple. new york wanted this, and she helped to kill it. if you are going to be a politician, you have to listen to the people who are going to vote for you or against you. >> i interviewed a view local guys in long island. and there are a few others too. i think this amazon fiasco will have legs.
other businesses are looking at new york and saying why would we do this. it's a disaster for me, too. >> we have been look specifically at the areas and groups. but they themselves want to make sure there is some ipped voice to give the assurance to the public of course. we want to know everything that could have been done more is done and the questions have to be answered. i am grieving with them. i have an important job