tv MONEY With Melissa Francis FOX Business January 5, 2013 12:00am-1:00am EST
in the new taxes to pay with the health care law. you cannot pay a fraction just hitting the rich. $60 billion per year does not cover one report of interest on the ballooning deficit. the fallout predictions and? more taxes are coming. they will be sneaky with deduction minutes for now. then for everyone. it is reality. there is no appetite to cut spending. what do we do? an additional the option when you give up on the art option to tax the hell out of everybody. look at your paycheck. it is just starting. cash only.derful weekend.
david: have a great weekend. melissa: i'm melissa francis and here's what's "money" tonight. a gun store misfire. one georgia dealer won't sell assault rifles to civilians and in response, the local police refuse to do business there anymore. the county sheriff is going to join us in just a second to explain why. plus, are you happy about today's jobs numbers? good. then you won't mind at this rate it will take most of my life to get everyone back to work. today's "money" panel crunches the numbers. thank you, america. a major ad bliss by aig gives thanks for its $182 billion bailout but reminding people you almost went belly-up seemslike an odd way increase business to me. we have a marketing guru here to break it all down. even when they say it's not it is always about money
melissa: all right. first let's take a look at the day's market headlines. stocks closed out a banner week, unexpect ledly strong nonmanufacturing activity and december jobs report coming in line with expectations. helped to boost t s&p 500 to a five-year high. it ared 4.6% for the week. that is its biggest gain since december of 2001. gold bugs taking i had on the chin yet again today. prices were pounded for a second straight session driven by news the fed may roll back stimulus measures by the end of this year. gold settled down nearly $26 at 1648.90 an ounce. it posted its sixth straight weekly loss, getting hit real hard. vix fear index rise in september turning into epic collapse. it is at the lowest level since october. falling 40% this week in the wake of congress's fiscal
cliff deal. tonight we start with guns. that is a ssitive topic these days for sure why this particular story really caught our attention. georgia is one of the country's friendliest states for gun owners but one dealer, dana safety supplies says, they will no longer sell semiautomatic assault rifles to the public at all. they will only sell them to law enforcement officers. well, now the local sheriff there who has bought guns from the store, for the past five years, says he is taking his business elsewhere. sheriff scott berry, joins me now. thanks for coming on the show today. explain to me -- >> glad to be here, thank you. melissa: thank you. explain to me why you made this decision?>> well, it's rea. the law-abiding citizens of my county can't go there and buy a legal to obtain rifle that they're entitled to buy and they have the money to pay for, then i'm not going to spend their tax money the and i'm not going to spend my personal money there.
pretty straightforward. melissa: wouldn't it make your job easier if there were fewer assault rifles out there? >> there is millions of assault rifles. we'll get, let's take a word assault rifle off the table. there are millions semiautomatic, millions of semiautomatictic rifles out on the market right now and statistically, an insignificant number of them are us to commit any kind of crime. rifles of any type don't bother me. handguns any type just don't bother me. the truth is in the hands of criminals they're tools of evil. but in the vast majority of hand they're owned by law-abiding citizens anddi my law-abiding tax paying citizens can't go in there and buy a rifle then i'm not going to spend our rifle to go in there and buy a thing. melissa: why would you say take the phrase assault rifle off the table? what bothers you about that. >> what is an assau rifle? the definition of an assault rifle is as wide and as broad as the building i'm sitting in. an assault rifle in my
definition is military weapon that is designed for military purpose. semiautomatic rifles just aren't assault rifles. you can call them assault rifles but that's not what they are. melissa: the brady campaign to prevent gun violence gave georgia an eight on scale of zero to 100 in terms of gun regulations and one of the reasons obviously, that is very low score if you're getting scale of 8 of one-to-one00. they include no limits on guns purchases. no required background checks for gun show purposes and no ban on assault weapons. what is your reaction to that? >> well, i'm actually, i was kind of hoping we would shoot for a lower number than that, but since we got an 8 let me address some of those issues. i don't know where they get this gun show purchase thing. in america, and in georgia, law-abiding citizens can buy and sell guns in the parking lot or on the floor of a gun
show. just as i can sell them in ocone county or wherever i happen to be. i can legal le sell my gun to somebody else. if you buy from a dealer at gun show you go you there the same process that you do at a stand-alone brick-and-mortar dealer store. so that to me is just, that's a scare tactic if you will. i don't buy into that whole thing. as far as some of the other problems i have with it, listen, georgia is a, georgia is a state where we truly believe that the second amendment exists for a reason and the second amendment exists to lawfully, law full citizens to be able to carry and buy firearms. it is that simple. and brady is not going to like it. brady will never like the state of georgia. melissa: especially in the wake of what happened in connecticut there isn't a reason for people to have automatic weapons. that these type of weapons at shoot so many rounds so
quickly, when you do have a bad person with a gun, it does, you know, up the death toll. it does make it a more dangerous situation. what do you say to people who make that argument? >> well, first off, again, they're blaming the tool for the person. in colon, germany where they have very strict gun control, a man made a flame thrower in order to take to a school to burn ne schoolchildren alive. we're blaming a tool for the person's conduct. the truth of the matter is, the tool is low-hanging fruit. that is what a politician can pass a bill and wave it in front of people, look it, we've done this. we've taken pistol grips off rifles therefore it is safer. that is absolutely ridiculous. anybody that doesn't see it that way, i can't convince them otherwise. melissa: what has the response been like in your community? because one of the arguments is that by taking your business away from this gun store, away from dana safety
supply, tha you're taking away significant part of their business and that it could cause them to lay off workers or shut down? >> i haven't heard that. i don't do enough business with dana safety supply to hurt their bottom line. i can't imagine thats true whatsoever. although i have bought from dana safety supply. dana safetity supply doesn't exist because i buy from them. we buy from a lot of vendors and put out bids for different things. in fact we had aid for semiautomatic rifles. we bought six more from another vendor because we wouldn't use dana safety supply. we just took delivery on those guns today. melissa: when you say you were pulling your business from their store, what is their response? >> as of this minute i have not heard a single word from dana safety supply. melissa: okay. thank you for coming on our show tonight. >> yes, ma'am. have a great day. >> have a nice weekend. here is the "money" question of the day does na safety supply decision to sell
automatic rifles only to law enforcement make them more or less likely to give them your business. this got people riled up. only one person said they would be more likely to do business there. everne else said they would be less likely to go there. we want to hear from more of you. facebook.com/melissafrancisfox. or follow me on twitter at melissa f francis. >>. >> moving on to the jobs number. at this rate it would take almost seven years for everyone without a job to get back to work. only if it were that easy. my power panel is here to crunch the numbers. they said it would take twice as long if not more. joining me, economist, peter morici, cain realty ceo john cain and peter from pioneer investments. peter, i want to start with you because it is almost impossible to do this math to figure out how long it
would take. you did your best today, and you said it would take a lot longer than we think. it may not even happen at this rate? >> well at this rate it can't happen because i'm getting an echo. melissa: uh-oh. >> at this rate it really can't happen because we need 125 to 10,000 jobs each month just to deal with population growth. so the net gain is very small. it would lower unemployment maybe .2 of a percent each year. at that poise it would be 10, 12 yea more. simply we'll have a recession before then. we would never get there. we would be talking to slowly to catch a moving wall. melissa: go to john. maybe we can straighten out peter's hearing problems. i hope someone can help him out because we need him in the discussion. john, what do you think of today's jobs number. >> getting feedback, guys. melissa: at this rate it would take forever to get everyone back to wor >> well, found northly i don't think many of us were
surprised by the jobs numbers. think we'll continue to be mired with heavy unemployment for a long time to come unless we start changing the policies that this administration and this congressre putting forth. melissa: sam, what do you think? >> i'm not sure that i would completely agree with peter that it will take forever. i think we're grinding forward slowly but think idea we'll ever go back to 4% unemployment is a little bit too optimistic. i think something like 6% is achievable but i would also agree with peter a recession out there in the future is likely to mean that it could be quite a while before we get there to the current baseline. i agree with john that a lot of blame has to be placed on the government's policies. melissa: sam, saying 6% would be the new normal, that is a horrible number because we're we'r standing right now at 7.8%, we have 20 two million people who are not working as much as they would like to or totally unemployed, 22
million people who to earn more money and work more hours in order to support thr family. we tick down to six, that can be america's future. >> when you have a government that pays people to be unemployed, where the people can retire early and that baby boomers are retiring, when women of child bearing age choose to stay home with their families, 4% unemployment is not really normal. that's, that's really, when we look back when we have had 4% unemployment in the past it is typically been in periods when we had significantly rising wage pressures and inflationary pressures in the u.s. economy. 4% unemmoment has usually been just before big problems emerged. so 4% is, in that sense i don't think a reasonable, long-term achievable norm. melissa: peter this, is one of the slowest recoveries we
have ever seen. what is the problem? >> well the problem has already been outlined. the chamber of commerce types say, well, businesses need certainty to invest. they have got lots of certainty. theyave higher taxes. more regulations and rising health care costs. and morning after they got higher taxes the president promised even higher higher taxes by saying any spending cuts would have to be balanced by more taxes. you know the cost of capital in the united states is very high if you're a small business. they don't go down to the jpmorgan bank to finance themselves. they finance them service out of their earnings their profits. raising on a business that makes a million dollars a year the government's take by 40 to $70,000, maybe a little more, plus state taxes that makes capital very expensive an very tough to create any jobs. this administration is making war on small entrepreneurs and small businesses. melissa: john, is there any hope that then out there e gettg belter? when i look at what the market did this
week, for example, we were talking about that the s&p sitting at multiyear high. maybe that is predictor of things to come in the future. actually it is getting better faster than we think? >> i don't think so. i agree with peter. unfortunately this administration and our congre put some handcuffs on employers and people that are job creators out there there is no reason to create jobs. everything they have done in the last 4 1/2 years has been a detriment to job creators. it is not, it is not in favor of that. when we continue to have unknown costs that are continuing to rise and rise and rise, people are not willing to take risks and create jobs. until we change those policies, i think you're going to continue to see a very a peoplic recovery. melissa: i'm glad you're talking about spending and government policies because we're going to stop right where we are right here. we have more to talk about with our power panel on the other side of this break. for example, like one senator's suggestion, the only way to get government spending under control, is
to shut it down. i love that idea! stick around. we have more "money" coming up. ♪ this is $10000. we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. your money needs an ally.
melissa: so welcome back to "money". out power panel is still here to talk about what i think is a terrific idea by senator john cornyn, a government shutdown, in an op-ed the tex republican said it may be necessarily to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well-being of our country. i think that is absolute genius. let's bring in our power panel back into see what they think. economist, peter morici and john kane, and sam wardell. peter, start with you, his basic point republicans were brought to the brink and threatened with a government shutdown in the last couple deals. we're coming to the point where that could happen again and bite the bullet and let a shutdown haen in order not to spend more money. what do you think? >> well, this time around the president went over the coress's head to the people and essentially ran up his public approval
ratings and mr. boehner blinked. he rolled. if the gop is willinn to shut down the government and stick to its guns, until it gets its spending cuts and take unpopularity that goes with it, in the end, then i think they can win. the real problem is they have retreated so many times that they don't have any credibility with their enemy. i mean already the president is at his rhetoric again, no spending cuts without more tax increases. he won't be happy until every small business in america pulls the shade down one more time and applies for a government position. melissa: john, i mean, it seems like one great way to get credibility back would be to go ahead and go over one of these cliffs, to have some sort of a shutdown. and it is like having a spouse out there spending too much. i mean keeping these guys home for a while might actually get them to stop spending even for a day or two. think of how much money we would safe. >> that might be only way to do it. they will not quit spending any other way.
cut them off. take the credit card away from them. that is only way you can stop them. to peter's point, you have to stand up to them at some point. if not, they just keep rolling over you and rolling over you. this president and this administration has no interest whatsoever in cutting spending none. melissa: no. >> you have to ice the hammer when you have the hammer and you have to use it. melissa: sam, drives me absolutely crazy when i hear democrats especially making the argument right now that not raising the debt ceiling is akin to saying we have wracked up these bills. now we're not going to pay for it. i think why would you extend someone's credit limit without them putting together a plan to stop spending in the future? i wouldn't give you more credit if you're not going to get your books in order. >> 100% agreed. if you look at the last time the president sent a budget to congressthe senate shot it down by think 99-0 vote. the president and senate have not fulfilled their responsibility and, you know, at this point i think that
somebody has to act like an adult in this discussion. now, it's a harsh, harsh, measure, and it's going to cause a huge amount of pain, but, this may be the only way that the republicans can in fact stop the momentum going on out there. melissa: peter, how do you explain to people, i mean you're an economics professor, why government spending is a weight on the economy? because keynesians make the argument that it stimulates. that is what would get the government going again. they have to go out there and spend and create demand because no one else is doing it. >> in the short term it does help to have a deficit if you use the period of grace permitted by a deficit to do the structural things to make the economy grow better. melissa: like what? likehat? what should they be doing, peter? >> getting bank regulation right. using restructuring remedy as opposed to all the bureaucrats running around, 107 inside of jpmorgan and couldn't catch the london whale because nobody was in that office, that kind of
thing. developing more domestic oil and gas. things that are impeding growth because the government is in the way. get it out of the way and then if you do tat and growth is faster, then you don't need all that deficit. you can cut spending. the other thinge have acknowledge a awful lot of our growth now and behavior of people has become dependent on these big deficits. look at the employment numbers. we never talk about it but the big number every mont, big winner every month is health care. why? that is really an extension of the government sector. go to a hospital these days. it is nothing but a government bureaucracy with a lot of supervisors that don't do very much. melissa: what do you think is one thing the government could do right now to help growth? stay home or do you have another idea? that was mine. >> stayome would certainly be a good start. i agree with peter. you have to get the regulatory environment more business-friendly. i think if our if the president and administration would listen to the business leers and take their
advice versus ignoring their advice and make it more business-friendly out there i think you would see a change in attitude but the business owners of the world, job creators of the world don't feel that. all they see is more increased costs and more uncertainty. with tt they're taking less risk. there will be less job opportunity going forward until that attitude changes. melissa: okay. guys, thanks so much for coming on. have a great weekend. >> take care. >> thank you so much. melissa: time for today's fuel gauge report. exxonmobil moving ahead with al $14 billion oil project. this is off newfoundland, canada will produce extra 150,000 barrees per day. the construction is expected to begin in 2017. oil production took a dive to 7 million barrels per week, that is the lowest level since 2001. refine, drawing down on u.s. stockpiles primarily contributing to the decline. opec's out put hit the
lowest level in more than a year. output cut by saudi arabia and interruption from supplies from iraq and falling iranian exports are being blamed for the decline. oil futures capped off the biggest weekly gain in three months, rising 2 1/2% for the week. next on "money", i didn't see anything to get excited about in today's jobs report and i don't think our panel did but why is christian dorsey jumping for joy? he is kind of sitting but looks joyous. i will does him with cold water when he tries to disagree with me coming up. don't you want to though if you're eating again net i canly modified food? washington state is letting voters decide if labels are really necessary. we'll explain that coming up. do you ever have too much money or too many food labels? this is ameri.
so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day afr day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male aouncer ] e pill eachmorning. 24 hours. zero heartbur and don't get heartburn in the first place! ♪ music body language-- without saying a word, it can tell you so much. like someone is having a stroke... know the sudden signs. learn f.a.s.t. f- face drooping a-arm weakness s- speech difficulty t- time, timto call 911 immediately.
melissa: so l's face it. we're just limping along on the road to recovery. 155,000 jobs. is it going to do it? will it help get the unemployment rate down at all? i think the jobs picture is pretty bleak but here to disagree with me, christian dorsey from the economic policy institute. welcome back to the show, christian. >> happy new year to you, melissa. melissa: you were jumping with joy when we were going to the commercial break. looked like you were sort of snoozing. >> no not at all i'm not happy with today's report. melissa: okay. >> but it does confirm what i've been telling you d others for a very long time. melissa: what's that? >> unlesswe do something differently this is where we are in terms of the labor market. if we think simply this will be a private sector-led recovery that will produce the unemployment, produce the jobs --. melissa: private sector-led recovery? how does the government out there spending and cracking
whip and doing everything they can? do somethg differently. we signed up to do exact same thing we've been doing e past four years. following your advice we'll be stuck here forever. we're not doing anything differently. we're staying on this road!. >> the reality is, for two years we have not had any real government investment in the economy. it is essentially been, you know, austerity by another name. melissa: what about $678 billion of stimulus they never actually spent? they spent 80% over course of whatever it was three or four years. now they want even more. >> talking about the recovery act has been out of the economy for two years. for two years. and for two years we've had, what you and others and i would agree, is insufficient job grow. so for two years we had the government out of it, just like people said we needed and what has happened? we had job growth flat-lining. melissa: more government spending? your answer right now when we have the terrible budget deficit and $16 trillion debt, you think
we should spend more mone where should the money come from? 77% of the population woke up and faw found a smaller paycheck. where will themoney come from >> why did they wake up and smaller paycheck. >> because the government raised taxes to try to pay for the incredible deficit. >> instead of dealing with incredible jobs crisis, we said folks, no the greatest threat is our deficit which is not accurate. melissa: but we haven't dealt with the deficit. we haven't dealt with the deficit. >> we're not going to be able to effectively deal with the deficit until we deal with the jobs crisis. don't you think it would be much more prudent course to have people back to work, contributing to economic growth and then deal with our deficit? melissa: president obama has been in office for four years. now starting his fifth year. why do you think he hasn't alt with the jobs problem then? >> it may have sothing to do with congress. he has jobs plan been put forth before congress. they haven't moved on it. messa: and who exactly do
you blame for that? because we just saw with this fiscal cliff deal republicans don't have any power. they don't have any influence. they can't get things done. all the democrats are in charge there. president obama isn charge. if you will blame people for not doing what you want over the past four years it has to be the democrats and the president? >> well i would think the house republicans could beg to differ with that. they seem to think they have a lot of power. melissa: no, they don't. i don't think a single republican would come on and te you they would feel like they're in power right now. >> seems th president who campaigned on the whole idea that taxes should not, should not be maintained at a lower rate for peop over $250,000 a year, he lost that battle. and why did he lose that battle? because house republicans didn't want to see taxes increased on anybody at all. so clearly they do have some power and clearly the president is not totally getting his way. melissa: republicans didn't want to see taxes raised on any one at all and democrats won as of this week, 77% of the population saw their taxego up. they saw teir paychecks go
down. everybody who got a paycheck today went because it was smaller. they have less money to spend in the economy. that is because the president and insisted taxes go up on everyone. i don't know how that is helpful to the jobs picture. >> no, the president didn't insist on taxes going up on everyone. it is regretable, extremely regretable we didn't find a way to replace the two% payroll tax cut that should have expired and should have been replaced by something else. that is something the president and the congress has full responsibility for because nobody fault for it. melissa: christian i think one thing we agree on this is a disaster. it is not, neither of us are jumping for joy. thank you for coming on tonight. you're always a great opponent and good sport. i love it when you come on to disagree with me. >> take care, melissa. happy new year again. melissa: next on money the push to label again net i canly modified food getting bigger but critics say it would cause higher prices and hurt sellers.
we'll explain that to everyone coming up. aig not aware of phrase, let sleeping dogs lie. a bold ad campaign thanking america for its $182 billion bailout. can this actually win them more customers? "piles of money" coming up. ♪ . [ male announcer ] where do you turn for legal matters? at legalzoom, we've created a better place to handle your legal needs. maybe you have questions about incorporating a business you'd like to start. or questions about protecting your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like to find the right attorney to help guide you along, answer any questions and offer advice. with an "a" rating from the better business bureau legalzoom helps you get personalized and affordable legal protection. in most states, a legal plan attorney is available with every personalized document to answer any questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected.
but the again net i canl modified salmon congress is considering putting on the market. evidently a lot of food we eat, mainly fruits and vegetables are already modified. we don't know about it because they're not labeled. there is a new initiative in washington state that would require all again net i canly modified food to be tabled -- geneticly modified. but others like, me say, i have a right to know what i'm eating. joining me to discuss both sides is state representative jje fitzgibbons. thanks so much for joining us. you're kind of on the fence about this, right? >> well, melissa, thanks for having me. i would say that for me the bottom line is that people should have the right to know what they're eating. falies should have the right to make that choice for themselves. i don't have strong feelings one way or the other whether geneticly modified foods are good or bad, and i think if
they were labeled i don't think that would make any difference in my personal buying decisions but i think families and individuals should have the right to make that choice themselves and not have the choice made by craft, monsanto or some other big food conglomerate. melissa: you mentioned monsanto. ey make watermelons that are smaller, they're seedless. they have modified them in a way to make them more desirable to people. that seems, i don't know, for some reason that is less threatening when we talk about these salmon that have been geneticly modified to grow twice as fast. they're sterile so they can't repopulate and know exactly which ones they are. ere is something about that that sounds very creeppy. like the fish in the simpsons that pops up with the three eyes. that's what i teal like the salmon. i feel like i have a right to know if that is the fish i'm eating? >> melissa, the fda never tested geneticly who hadfied organisms to say if they're
safe for human health. the industry says they are. i don't know one way or the other. a lot of consumers feel the way you do and would like to have t choice to make that for them service. maybe for a watermelonbut maybe not a salmon. those choices should be made by each family but not a corporate boardroom somewhere. families in washington state and even a lot of farmers here in washington state, we have a huge agricultural section here in washington. a lot of farmers feel that way that that information should be provided to their customers and that is what this initiative is all about. melissa: the fda looked at the salmon situation and they believe it is safe although a lot of people say the fda doesn't go far enough. they want to keep hormones in chicken and other things are considered safe but don't want to feed that to their children. they feel like it has an impact. the flipside of the argument is the cost. every time you put a label on something and every time you increase regulation it makes the price of the food more expensive. it hurts the people that are selling it because it is
just a cost that they have to bear that they don't get anything back for. so, and, you know there are people around the world that are starving and could benefit from geticly modified foods so how do you tackle those arguments? >> sure. i would not, myself support a ban on genetically modified footsds. there may be time and place for those kind of foods on the market. in certain third world countries that could help with hunger problems. at the same time if a label adds a cost, we already have nutrition facts on our food. we have nuttion facts on every box of cereal you buy. there is a small cost associated with that. would we not want to provide that information to the consumer to save a few pennies on a box of cereal? i don't think so. i think consumers right to know for me is more important than -- i also think that voters in washington state are going to understand that a little bit of ink on paper on the packaging after food product
is not going to change the price very much. melissa: yeah. >> studies, industry has commissioned show huge increases in food bills for consumers tend to be based on the assumption that consumers will not eat any genetically modified foods. melissa: we have to go. >> i think that is fair assumption. melissa: thanks for coming on. i really appreciate your time. >> thanks for having me and go seahawks. melissa: i wasn't only one wondering if he was old enough to hold elected office, right? you were warneddering that too? celebrating good times at aig. th insurance giant thanks america for its huge bailout in a new ad campaign. have you seen these ads? how could this possibly be a good move for their business? i'm not sure about this. at the end of the day it is all about money. ♪ .
wait, have you seen this ad? aig's odd new advertising blitz. ace check it out. >> aig, we said we would turn it around. >> we're helping missouri come back from a devastating tornado. >> we're helping east coast recover from hurricane sandy. >> we' a leading global insurance company based here in america. >> we paid back everything that american lent us. >> everything. >> profit of $22 billion for america. >> thank you, america. >>elping peoplerecover d rebuild. that's what we do. melissa: hmmm. i don't know. it is nice to be thanked for the big bailout especially when a lot of people actually didn't want to do it. i'm not sure this is a great idea for an ad campaign. joining me is advertising and marketing expert. thanks for coming back. what do you think?. >> i shed a tear. melissa: looked like you were weeping? >> i was weeping. i was trying to hide it. it is a wonderful idea. they deserve a victory lap.
first time in the history of the world the u.s. government has ever made money on anything. melissa: on anything, right. >> they borrowed $180 billion from you and me. melissa: yeah. >> they paid it back with interest, $20 billion of interest. melissa: do you work for aig by the way? into, no,. melissa: just checking. >> no, as a matter of fact, i held the stock at $85 a share. melissa: yeah. >> in the old days. so, what the u.s. government ought to do, they ought to loan aig more money. we could get rid of the deficit. melissa: right. here is my problem with this i'm not sure who they're targeting. because they're an insurance company. >> right. melissa: so the whole idea of an insurance company you pay them, pay them, pay them. you have a disaster, then there they are strong and tough with money to give you. they're reminding us that they almost went under! all of my insurance would have been paid for nothing! this seems like it is reaeally stupid in terms of what their core business is which is insurance. >> there is a fair point but the purpose of this ad are two things.
number one to start to rebuild their reputation. number two, to erase the past of these incompetents who ran this company. melissa: how do you erase by reminding? you, you're telling people, maybe i happened to forget. we're like, don't forget. we borrowed 182 billion. >> what they're trying to do is show people we're not lehman brothers who is gone. we're not wamu, who is gone. we'renot countrywide, who is gone. we are a new company that, we have nothing to do with hank greenberg who founded the company and got kicked out of the he was replaced by martin sullivan a white haired man who was a complete boob. melissa: right. >> paid himself $4 million. hide joe casano, derive tiffs joey, cost aig $11 billion. almost cost the society, bankruptcy. i kn as i said because i bought the stinkin' stock at 85. melissa: sorry about that. >> they deserve to rebuild
this way. the ad will run for two weeks and start to advertise their product. >> in all seriousness who do you think they're aiming at? is it shareholders? is it the general public? is it the taxpayer? who are they aiming at? >> all of the above, all of the above including primarily the people who buy the stock to say to them, we are not the old company. we're a new company and this is part of a larger public relations campaign. the ceo, bob benmosche, has done a great job. melissa: fantastic. >> very visible. comes on shows like this. they are evolving from, from the, image of a pariah to a respected corporate citizen. more power to them. melissa: before we run out of time, money meet are on cale of one to money how money is the ad? >> i give them a solid four. >> really? >> i wish i had friends who paid back debt. melissa: lot of fun. frazier, thanks for coming on. appreciate your time.
♪ melissa: the good music. melissa: all right. it's time for alittle fun with "spare change." we have attorney extraordinary joy jackn and radio talk-show goddess monica crowley. all right. in full party note. first up, a 15-year-old girl in iceland is suing the country because she wants to use her own name. her name is bleach. it is not on the official list of names that are approved by the icelandic government. who knew? not her mom who says she had no idea the name was not okay. officials say the list is supposed to protect children from embarrassment. now it's starting to make a lot more sense. since she was born she has been identified as carol on oliver documents because obviously that's n embarrassing. >> here's where we start. that's one of the greatest
things about america. land of the freedom of the brave. we can be who we want to beat. i'm bonding with her because my full name is joey cannot even joseph. and i don't have a middle name. i was thinking about changing it. i think this country should allow our to do whatever she wants to. a beautiful girl. a beautiful name. >> big government here in america, but this is really big government. and it's not just iceland, denmark and germany as well. they have this pre-existing list of accepted names. that is completely -- melissa: germany? >> germany as well. a little individual freedom in scandinavia and germany. >> oh, monica. melissa: if you watch the nfl and the weekend you might be wondering some of these names. i don't know. >> it's america. name whenever you want. >> that is the freedom. and that was approved.
>> it was approved. >> no lawsuit behind that one. melissa: all right. well, ever been in error -- really hairy brakup situation? and new zealand all decided to make the best of her break up and cash in on her boyfriend secrets. she put his secret fishing spot up for sale on the internet. she actually got 90,000 hits and made a 3,000 box. you go. i love this. >> hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. i want to know the purpose of the breup because it had to be pretty bad break up. he, of course, every man is a fault. no, i'm kidding. >> women are always right. always right. >> i want to know what he did to deserve this. he must have done something. melissa: seabrook up with her. that's enough. >> when was supposed to be going and whether he was going fishing. that's what happened. you see that. the payback is among give away all of your little secrets. an enterprising woman indeed.
melissa: golf clubs. this is giving me all kinds of ideas. >> he does watch this show. he wouldn't think i would actually do it. >> little to you know. melissa: all right. you are did hear about a month ago, but te fiscal cli deal is renewing interest in using a magic point tha will solve the debt cisis. look, there it is. jonathan honig as it. new york democratic congressman is suggesting itit is possible o mend a platinum trillion dollar coin obviously. his ticket and the treasury, called the day. crisis solved. any thoughts? >> once we meant the trillion dollar coin, i think then the next move should be minting the gazillion dollar coin. i think that's completely realistic. look, you start going down this road of a trillion dollar coin in you put it in fort knox of someplace. >> to keep going. >> if you really want to talk about in
IN COLLECTIONSFOX Business Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on