tv Bulls Bears FOX Business August 9, 2015 2:00am-2:31am EDT
on the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act. you can turn the subject matter any way you want. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you so much, megyn. >> pleasure. to be continued. >> look forward to it. >> thank you for watching our la baby, you got me all wrong, baby ♪ ot me all adding jobs, but not enough jobs. the labor force participation rate remaining at its lowest level since 1977. some of these guys saying we need to bring taxes down to get jobs way back up. are they right? hi, everyone. i'm brenda buttner. this is "bulls & bears." and here they are. gary b. smith, jonas max ferris, john layfield, along with lisa boothe and chuck rocha. welcome to everyone. >> hi, brenda. >> do we need taxcuts to get bigger job gains? >> we do. look, a lot of these republican candidates talking about job creation have earned the right to do so. look, florida was number one in
job creation under jeb bush's watch. john kasich as governor of ohio has added 300,000 jobs. just look at states like florida and texas. they have a job creation rate of two to three times higher than that as california and new york. if you look at the bureau of labor statistics just between the years of 2007 to 2010, texas added more jobs than 49 states combined. as you know, texas has no corporate or individual income taxes. just look at the states. >> well, what do you look at, chuck? >> what i look at is there's a republican primary debate, kind of like asking a bunch of kids if they like ice cream. of course they'll talk about tax cuts but there's a history here. when george bush cut tacks we went into an all-time low and recession. as a small businessman, i'm not getting them. tax cuts normally only go to a small group of people who can employ logic and the rest of us are left behind. >> more to the recession than tax cuts, gary b.
had a lot to do with the housing boom busting. take a look at tax cults and that what that means to job gains. what's the mechanism by which that works? >> easy, brenda. first, there's two points. one, even the most recent study by the national bureau of economic research, they found a positive correlation between tax kupts and job growth. but more importantly, people like chuck forget, we're earning the money. why isn't the right thing to do to let the people that earn the money keep the money except for essential government services? look, here's how it breaks down. if i spend a dollar, i'll spend a dollar normally where it's most efficient. i'm going to go to the starbucks and starbucks grows or i'm going to spend it on netflix. when the government spends it, they try to deem in their mystical powers what's going to work and that's why they come up with silly stuff like the stimulus package that we have that built all these construction projects that never
turned out, things like solyndra. when the government spends the money, they spend it inefficiently and that doesn't lead to any job growth. let the people deep keep the money. they know how to spend it best and that's what causes jobs to grow. >> jonas, that's basically how i want's supposed to work. if you give tax cut, people have more money in their pockets. they spend it. companies have to hire more workers. do you think it works that way? >> look, you can make the moral case and i think it's a strong one gary just made, and by the way, you can make a case about a lot of points brought up about going to a national sales tax just for the point of simplici y simplicity. i think that's enough of a benefit. but the awesome things, that part is questionable. a lot of cases we raise taxes and the job growth was there and the opposite. in some way it's a perverse incentive to hire people if the top brackets are a lot higher
than the low brackets because tuck sit back and work less because you're paying a high tax rate anyway. not a high level, but there are some strange things. our tax code is a negative tax rate right now so it pays you to take on your first job and make a little bit of money for the earned income tax credit. it's hard to get more incentives than that. i don't know how we're going to lower this problem with the labor force by going any more that way. we already pay you to start working. what more do you want out of the tax code? just to say lots of hiring is a bit of a stretch. >> i guess the idea, john, is that if you cut taxes especially on the people who create jobs, you'll be able to hire more people. >> yeah, exactly. i think the better comparison is ronald reagan's economy to president obama's economy. ronald reagan created twice as many jobs, 15 million to 7 million, ronald reagan's gdp grew about 32% during his term, president obama has grown about 9%. also ronald reagan had less spending a percentage of gdp. i think historically this shows
that it works. most importantly, when you talk about job creator, ask my friend chuck rocha how much tax he pays and it will make you absolutely sick, that he will pay this much as part of a small business when the big companies in this country are paying a tax rate of 22%, 23%, because they've been able to buy off politicians over decades. it's why we have a 72,000-plus-page irs manual, why they pay such a low rate and the people that get stuck with the bill can't influence politicians and that's your small business, and that's who creates jobs. >> let's ask chuck. >> i'm going to agree with everybody on the panel about this piece and i am a left-wing liberal from texas. >> no. >> i'm also a small owner of an llc and i get taxed on my individual rate. and i live in d.c. another 9% on that. if i'm going to hire, sure, i want to have a tax break, but i also want the other people paying the same amount of taxes. and i don't want you to overtax working folks, so you put a good
democrat like me in a conundrum. >> using those big words. okay, lisa. >> here's the irony. it's liberals like hillary clinton calling for higher taxes. but let's take a look at president obama's economy. they do it under the guise it will help middle clas families but they're making less than they did before president obama took office. look, we've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in construction and manufacturing industry. middle class families are suffering under the policies. >> we just heard huckabee proposing taxing capital gains. major tax increase from a liberal. to spin it like only liberals are talking about tax increases given what we just heard in the debate is a stretch, wouldn't you say? >> no, i don't think so. as i mentioned before, folks like governor jeb bush and john kasich have a strong platform to talk about job creation. let's look at the states. according to a recent gallup survey, 8 out of 10 states
leading the nation in job growth have republican governors. look at a state like north dakota leading the charge specifically on energy policies which republicans support. they doubled their economy in 11 years. so, yeah, let's take a look at these republican state where is republican governors are leading the nation in job growth. >> gary b.? >> well, look, you know, i want to come back to something that chuck said. he said it's a conundrum. i don't think there is any conundrum here. i think one of the things that the left thinks is we must maintain the size of the government. in order to do that and all the good they provie, we need to raise taxes. no. it's simple. cut taxes for everyone. shrink government. is there anyone out there that thinks government is as efficient, as effective as it is now? there's fraud and waste at every single department we have. we're not talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. we're talking billions of dollars across the board. there's an entire department that could be cut without any fear whatsoever. department of education for one.
that should all be done locally. we can shrink the size of the government, put more money back in both corporations, as we have the highest tax rates, and individuals, grow the economy. it's all a win-win. there is no conundrum. >> okay. i'm just going to let john respond to that. quickly. >> the conundrum is why will nobody listen to steve forbes? he has a simple plan. a retail sales tax won't work. we go to a cash economy. we need 18% to 19% of gdp. that's not going to work. a simple flat tax that is progressive like steve forbes talked about, that will work. but the reason that it will not be done, and this is bipartisan, by the way, republicans and democrats, if they have a flat tax, where they can't manipulate that tax code, they don't have a way for themselves to be bought off by doing favors for big companies in their district. that is why it is so hard to get a tax reform done, because these politicians enjoy being bought off.
>> okay. thanks, guys. that's got to be the last word. "cavuto on business" in about 20 minutes. kwhaf you got? >> we saw how jeb bush handled the donald at the debate. now he's here with me. and forget illegals crossing the border. did one u.s. city just cross the line? see you soon. >> you absolutely will. we can't wait. up here first, is your privacy more important than our national security? chris christie and rand paul going head to head on that issue. who's got it right? >> governor christie, make your point. >> senator, when you're sitting in a subcommittee just blowing
others. i'm uma pemmaraju. back to "bulls & bears." >> that's a completely ridiculous answer. i want to collect more records from terrorists but less records from other people. how are you supposed to know, megyn? what are you supposed -- how are you supposed to -- >> use the fourth amendment. get a warrant! get a judge to sign a warrant. >> senator -- >> goff nor christie, make a point. >> when you're sitting in a subcommittee blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that. when you're responsible for protecting the lives of the american people, then what you need to do is to make sure -- is to make sure that it works the way it's supposed to work. >> here's the problem, governor. >> john, you say the problem. is putting our privacy above our security?
>> we certainly are. this is a serious debate and rand paul when pressed, his only answer was you hugged president obama. i was expecting at any moment for him to stick his tongue out and shoot spit wads at governor christie. this guy wants to be president and that's his answer to a serious issue? look, i've never been grope by tsa. i guess i'm too old and not appealing, but if those guys want me to body surf naked through their scanner so i'm safe on a plane, i'm fine with that. if you want to take my phone and you want to look at my records, i have no problem with that if that helps you identify terrorists by looking at a wide database. i have absolutely no problem with that at all. i want terrorists not to harm me. >> okay. i don't know really where to go with all of that, but, chuck, let me ask you, this is a slippery slope, though. it really is, isn't it? >> yeah. what we find in doing politics, and keep in mind when i deal with the political part of this and when we talk to people in polling, if you ask them if you want to give up their records,
privacy, you see liberal democrats, libertarians all fall in line with rand paul. but the first time something happens in this country and a bomb goes off in times square, there's a terrorist attack, you will see all of this change right now. it's a cool thing to say, yeah, i don't want nobody looking at my cell phone, but i'm falling in line because i think he's right and we have to give up a little bit of personal freedom to make sure we're safe. >> jonas, is that reasonable? >> these are both of the -- both a little too extreme. i think everything we do now is okay, war, terrorism, torturing, but the other guy lives in a philosophical war, don't tread on the constitution. phone records, not kicking in everyone's door. it's debatable whether that is even an authorized search and seizure like we're going to have do something.
cameras on the street going to have to be okay. don't do record going to have to be okay. starting wars and going -- in prison forever, that's not okay. that's a constitutional issue. i think of the two christie is a little more sensible about the issue. >> gary b., security versus privacy. tough to find a balance, but in the world today our security is really paramount, isn't it? >> exactly, brenda. 99% of the time i fall in line with rand paul kind of libertarian myself. but in this case, the government has very few jobs. our security is first and foremost. in fact, there is no privacy without the security. so you have to place that first. the other thing is that, you know, in terms of all this electronic surveillance, look, the world is becoming a complicate place. you just can't go in and lay down a line of bombs over a country, and that's the end of it. no, you have to be sophisticated. you have to do these things. my last question is whose privacy in all this that rand paul is talking about has been
violated? who has raised their hand and said, you know, the nsa looked at my cell phone records and now i can't do x, y, and z? i think the potential is there. it hasn't happened yet. but on the flipside, i think that homeland security, nsa, whatever has really done a lot of good behind the scenes by going this route. >> i think part of the problem, lisa, is that people don't know if their phones have been tapped or if they've been looked at a any way, that there's -- in terms of privacy, it's difficult to know what they've done to you. >> well, that's probably true. look, i think it's important to note that it's not just republicans that are having this debate among their party. democrats are too. we saw that most recently over the debate in congress with the patriot act. but, look, i think as technology continues to improve and we also see the footprint of terrorist organizations like isis improve, we're going to continue to have this debate, we're going to continue to have this conversation. i think there's a balance to strike and i think congress recently sought to do that with the usa freedom about when they
replace section 2115 of the patriot act that dealt specifically with the metadata gathering program and what that did was try to narrow the scope of those requests while still allowing the intelligence committee to do their jobs. i think it's important to continue to have this debate and find an appropriate balance. >> okay. great debate. i'll put you guys up against christie and rand paul anytime. "cashin' in," eric, what do you have coming up? >> scott walker the man who stood shoulder to shoulder we are donald trump on the debate stage thursday night, joins me on "cashin' in." plus, remember the ceo who hiked all of his workers' wages no matter what their title was to 70 grand a year it? 's backfiring big time and we saw it coming. now "cashin' in" is coming to you at 11:30. >> and we will be watching. up here first, so much for just living in their parents' basement. what if i told you many millennials are helping pay for their parents' basement?
keeping their room messy, like my daughters, by the way, so it's nice to see them stepping up and taking responsibility. it is a great sign. bodes well for the future. >> what do you think? >> my father and grandfather, two of the hardest working men in texas. they worked hard, had callouss on their hands, fought in world wars. with my son, i don't think i'm going to be the generation like that because if i have to rely on him to pay part of my bills i'm in a world of hurt. >> i'm a little worried about my my len yawl as well. jonas, is ramon going to be taking care of you? >> look, wall street does research, it always seems to say everyone's undersaved and you need $5 million to retire. i don't think this is that good, though. when you read the data, it looks a little desperate. these parents are having trouble making ends meet. the millennials are not wealthy. they're like, oh, have some money. they have debt from school
still. so this is not the greatest news. it's better than letting them in be in the streets but i just think there are definitely some people who have undersaved. >> lisa, what do you think? >> well, you know, i am a millennial and i tend to condemn my generation because i do think that people are a little bit lazy and used to getting things for free and that's a problem. but i'm going to stand up for us in this segment and i say sthth is a positive thing. maybe there's some responsibility there we haven't seen before. i know personally if anything happened to my parents i'd work two, three, four jobs, whatever it took to be able to take care of them. >> john? >> i agree. this is what family is all about. one thing that's hurt because we've had interest rates so low by the fed for so long is senior savings rate has really hurt seniors, these low interest rates. they can't get yield. this is what family is all about. these seniors who have families who can help, thank goodness because a lot of family don't have family to lean on. that's when you have a real problem with society. to me this is what is good about
millennials or good about anybody, helping your family out. >> very well put. gary b., i give you 20 seconds to take back that comment about your daughter's messy room. >> well, ill love to, but i can't. stick to the facts. my only comment is, no, if this is how -- maybe our generation really has done a good job raising the millennials if they're willing to step up to the plate. pat ourselves on the back. >> they're trying to what, jonas? >> they're taking care of the house so their inheritance is protected, looking out for their own interest. >> our millennial, lisa, go ahead. you have to last word. >> i think this is a great thing. i think most of us are in agreement with this. it's good to see millennials taking some responsibility because let's face it, policies under obama are leading to, you know, a society and a generation that's used to handouts, used to things that are too easy. >> okay. nice to end on a nice note. all right. thanks, guys. and thanks to lisa and to chuck
bear. >> taser a great sector. i oeb it. up 20%. >> jonas? what do you like? >> let artificial technology see my medical records. it's going to be up 20% because we'll fortune. somebody's always watching me. >> gary b., bull or bear? >> bear. >> neil is next. forget letting illegals into the country. now we're letting them run the country? hi, everyone. i'm neil cavuto. the city of huntington park in california just appointed two illegal immigrants as commissioners. that means the illegals will now be making decisions on behalf of legal americans. and that did not sit well with some fans in that audience not intrigued. something tells me jeb bush isn't either. >> the idea that illegal immigrants would be on a city council is absurd. just as it is for sanctuary cities to exist. you can't have cities that just blatantly violate federal law and then have the