tv Bulls Bears FOX Business December 21, 2018 5:00pm-6:01pm EST
could get something big right now. then they went back over to the house side, then they went back to pence's office -- connell: is that our last show together for this year? melissa: yeah, i think so. merry christmas, happy new year. all of that kind of stuff. that does it for us, bulls and bears starts right now. connell: see ya. david: breaking news, stocks getting shammed once again as the senate scrambles to avoid a government shutdown just hours before the deadline. hi, everybody, this is bulls and bears. joining me today, liz peek, gary b. smith and adam lashinsky. senate republicans looking to put forth and pass the house's spending bill that includes funding for the border wall before midnight tonight. >> now it's up to the democrats as to whether or not we have a shutdown tonight. i hope we done, but we're totally prepared for a very long shutdown. >> president trump, you will not get your wall. abandon your shutdown strategy.
you're not getting the wall today, next week or on january 3rd when democrats take control of the house. david: vice president pence just met with senator schumer no doubt to try and persuade him to change his mind. let's go straight to fox news' senior capitol hill producer chad pergram, we just saw you standing right next to the vice president. what is he trying to do right now? >> reporter: well, the wheels are starting to turn on capitol hill. there was a meeting with the vice president, the budget director, jared kushner, there was a long walk across the capitol by the vice president over to meet with house speaker paul ryan, jim jordan of ohio, mark meadows in that meeting, and here in about the past ten minutes the vice president and that coterie, mick mulvaney and kushner, headed back to the senate. he's now in the vice president's
office on the senate side of the capitol. there's starting to be conversations. that was not the case just a couple of hours ago. the fact that people are talking, that tells you a lot. they're right up to almost the end here where there could be a government shutdown, and if they're going to avert that, they have to talk. what we're also told is there could be an effort to dump in a little bit of border wall money or some extra security or something that the democrats could stomach. whether or not that's going to be palatable to republicans in the house of representatives is unknown. i asked house speaker paul ryan a few minutes ago when he walked by, hey, can you tell us anything, and he really doesn't respond at all. when i asked him earlier when he walked to that meeting, he pointed back to the senate and said you're going to have to talk to those guys. but the senate is the operative place right now, because it has to get through the senate. you have to have agreement there. right now they are on the -- more than four hours, four and a half hours, this procedural vote has been open just to try to call up the bill that the house of representatives approved last
night. that was the bill to keep the government open through february and add in $5 billion for the wall. they have to call it up in the senate just to start the debate, and they haven't been able to do so. they've had attendance problems in the senate, and the vice president is here in case he has to break a tie tie. but so far that vote has been losing. they don't have the votes to call up that bill, otherwise they would have closed the vote some hours ago. frankly, they are pushing the outer limits of the record for the longest vote in senate history, five hours and 15 minutes in february of 2009 on the stimulus package. they needed the vote of democratic ohio senator sherrod brown who had gone home for his mother's wake, and he jetted back to washington to cast the final vote there on the stimulus package in 2009. there's a lot of action starting to happen now, i suspect we might know more in the next couple of hours. >> chad, question. at one point it sounded like the administration felt they could find money elsewhere in the budget. is that what mick mulvaney is
trying to do? and secondly, is there any appetite for the house revisiting their bill, or is it really strictly up to the senate now? >> reporter: well, you know, it depends where this goes. first of all, the senate has to get the bill up. that's the first thing. and then see if they can accept what the house changed. that's probably not going to be the case because you need to have 60 votes. can they accept something a little bit different, put that in on the senate side, and then they have to zip it back to the house of representatives. that's probably why they were consulting with members of the freedom caucus. they're the ones who went to the mat and told the president you need to veto this bill. if you don't fight at this point, this is going to do damage -- those were the words used by mark meadows earlier this week -- in your 2020 presidential re-election effort. so can they live with that? that's unclear. you know, that could be, you know, creating a political problem for republican leaders if they go back and dial back on what they just pushed sord hard on last night. >> chad, jonas ferris here. is there any talk anywhere to
pay for this somehow either by chopping money out of, like, the homeland security budget or having a wall tax or some way to come to agreement on paying for this thing? >> reporter: well, what they always do at this stage is look for ap exit ramp. and that's why people are saying, okay, what can we really live with, what's really acceptable, and we can save face at the end of the day. that's why i want to go back to the other question at -- and this was something sarah sanders mentioned, reprogram money. they've already approved 5 of the 12 appropriations bills. one of them is military construction, and this is potential that you could -- with the blessing of congress, and maybe they could be part of a deal -- but you could say, all right, we'll reprogram a little bit of that money, and we won't add in new wall money. you have to have a blessing on capitol hill, we'll see. we're getting just a few hours away from a partial government shutdown, and that's when the wheels start to come. we'll know more here in the next couple of hours. >> hey, chad, it's gary smith.
i want to get to the worst case scenario, i guess depending on what side you're on, maybe the best case scenario. there is a shutdown, and say it goes more than 24 hours, it lasts a couple days or weeks, who's going to get the blame for it? that's what it always comes back to, who's going to spin in the best or the worst? >> you know, when we've been through these government shutdowns before, it's always hard to assess who is going to get blamed. you know, in 2013, ted cruz, the republican senator from texas, went to the mat. he was blamed by both sides for the government shutdown which lasted two and a half weeks over trying to defund obamacare. and guess what? senate republicans, you know, they took control of the senate that year. you know, chuck schumer took the blame for the short shutdown earlier this year over the week. president trump said he was going to take blame for the shutdown this time around, and then he said, no, i'm going to blame the democrats. he said that earlier today. i don't know. it is hard -- you know, we're at
almost our furthest point away from an election, and imagine all the things that will happen politically, you know, between now and the 2020 elections, and, you know, be able to assess. but at the end of the day, i will say this, it seems as though the president's message, i'm willing to take that mantle, now, that certainly helps him with his base, but it may also backfire, and that's the problem where rank and file republicans, some -- especially moderates or those in swing districts -- are saying, ooh, that's not good politics for us back home. >> chad, this is adam lashinsky in california. schumer doesn't want the government to shut down, but he does want to embarrass president trump. he's basically indicated that five or six times. all he really needs to do is get the president to accept something that's a little bit humiliating like less than a billion dollars and everyone can go home, is that a likely scenario? >> reporter: yeah, certainly. that's really the only exit strategy that's in play. and frankly, people were a little bit surprised. you know, the best vote counter
on capitol hill is nancy pelosi, and she had indicated for a long time they didn't have the votes to pass that spending wall with border wall -- spending bill with border wall funding, and they passed it. i think the fact that she had said it so many times probably ginned up some of that support among republicans to say let's go show her, especially if she's the speaker of the house come january. david: and that was a a hue milllating loss on her part, because she said it in front of the whole world in that meeting inside the oval office where he said it could pass, she said it couldn't. who is to blame for this thing or who gets the blame or how that affects things, we should mention, i mean, we are a business channel, markets have not done badly during previous shut downes. in fact -- shutdowns. in fact, the last shutdown during the duration increased 3%. and the president just tweeted out this morning the shutdown will last a very long time. this thing could go on for a long time without it having that
damaging effect on the markets. i mean, there are other things that are worrying the markets like china, etc. >> reporter: yeah, and i want to comment on that for a little bit, because this would affect about 800,000 federal workers -- david: who always get paid back, right? >> reporter: right. they almost always go back and retroactively pay them, but there'd be about 380,000 who would not be working, 420,000 who would be working with no pay. also we're at a holiday weekend here, so monday, you know, christmas eve, tuesday is christmas. and, again, not to minimize this by any impact here, but the fact that there's not a whole lot of work that's going to be done or needed to be done between now and about next wednesday, the next actual business day. so this is a shutdown. and, again, they do go back ex post facto and pay these folks. i spoke with the office of steny hoyer, they have a piece of legislation ready to go. but the pay period, they have to process that pay on the 24th to pay on the 28th. so those paychecks would be
delayed. >> you know, the interesting thing, the interesting thing, building on david's point, you know, just over this holiday weekend for people who think, oh, my gosh, there's a government shutdown, air traffic controllers are still on duty, national weather service is still on duty, tsa is still on duty, you're still going to get your mail delivered. the average person out there even traveling over the weekend is going to see no effect whatsoever. >> reporter: and that the's where some people wonder if there is a big disconnect when we have these fights in washington. you know, what are they scrapping about, you know? is it just a bunch of noise from inside the beltway? >> exactly. >> to gary's point though, what we know is that democrats will find some truly miserable agency of the government that is shut down -- [laughter] that really does impact millions of people, and all of a sudden everyone will be weeping over it. so that probably will happen. [laughter] i guess one question is a vote in the house, could it be at all viewed as maybe more legislators beginning to think that people
actually do want border security? this has been such a topic now for so many months, and after the caravan and all this, i mean, you know, when it comes down to chuck schumer and donald trump arguing slats versus walls, don't you think people are beginning to think this is unbelievably infantile and people need to start talking about the big issues here? >> reporter: no, liz -- my viewpoint on that is we do have border security. this is not a debate about border security. we have lots of it. could it be better? sure. could it be different? sure. but president trump wants a wall paid for by the mexicans, that's what's at issue here. >> well, liz, by the same logic, some people wanted obamacare, and they wanted to shut down the government -- >> and look what happened, we have obamacare. i mean, at some point it seems to me -- by the way, we do not have border security. david: no. talk to anybody. talk to all of those officials down on the border, the people
on the border. we've done countless number of specials on that showing, in fact, how they're totally overrun. all of the shelters that they have down there for the kids are filled to capacity -- >> and a wall -- [inaudible conversations] >> you're both right about the lack of border security, but some people were right about the lack of health insurance. so etch's got a point as to why we're shutting down. but i think, the ultimately, america loses because it makes our country look like italian politics -- david: i'd rather have a problem in terms of the way we look to the rest of the world than have the problem the that germany has which is totally overrun by millions of immigrants that they have no room for. i mean, that's what we are up against. >> that's not their lack of wall, they wanted to take them in. >> i think that's true. david: well, we don't unless they are the kind of people who are going to work in this economy. >> i think to the casual observer it looks like the republicans wanted to shut down the government because we were spending too much money, and now they want to spend more money -- >> this is a small amount of
money, jonas. >> i believe in the wall finish. >> i believe in santa claus and christmas miracles. the real christmas miracle would be we actually talk about immigration reform, we actually -- >> totally agree with you there, liz. david: right. >> and there are a lot of aspects to it. border security is one part of it. daca, treatment for how we're going to treat the daca people is another. wouldn't it be amazing if an adult entered the room and we actually solved this problem? >> and, liz, i agree 100% there and will remind you that president george w. bush and president obama tried and failed to do comprehensive immigration reform. and president trump has not. instead, he wants to build a wall -- david: no, that's not true. he's been very specific about wanting to change our system from the current crazy lottery system which has never made any sense to me at all to one that is based on merit. you are -- >> that's not comprehensive though. david: by the way, chad, is that making any headway at all through any of these discussions, the switch to a merit system? >> reporter: they really
haven't talked about actual immigration policy at all -- >> to liz's point. >> that's right, it's crazy. >> reporter: and at some point, you know, you talk to paul ryan, if you look at his farewell address at the library of congress the other day, he mentioned casualingly is one of the things he regretted is they weren't able to move immigration reform. they passed a comprehensive bill about five years ago, bipartisan, through the senate, almost 70 votes. and john boehner was the speaker of the house, and they never, ever considered it over here. that was kind of the death knell for that -- david: chad, i'd say i'm sorry because you have to work over a holiday weekend, but i know you love this stuff. so congratulations -- [laughter] being on top of a good story, and thanks for joining us. well, it's been a year since the president signed tax cuts into law. have they delivered on the promises that were made? more on that next. ♪ the hard work you put into lowering your
very high triglycerides with diet and exercise deserves the hard work that went into the science behind vascepa. prescription vascepa. vascepa, along with diet and exercise, has proven results in multiple clinical trials. vascepa looks different because it is different. over a decade of extensive research and development achieved proven results. that's the prescription power of vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about what the science behind
prescription vascepa can mean to you. amarin thanks the clinicians and patients who participated in the vascepa clinical trials. amarin thanks the clinicians and patients who participated 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. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
would grow the economy, create jobs and energize small business and entrepreneurs. so, gang, have the it can caughts -- tax cuts delivered? >> absolutely, david. you know, communists on the panel like adam are going to disagree. [laughter] but, look, by any metric, how are you measuring success? are you measuring by gdp? they're way over the obama malaise years. by jobs in those are up. by unemployment? unemployment's down. are you measuring it by wages? wages are up. and best of all, here's the thing, the lefties always think, well, there's a pot of money out there, we just have to decide are you going to have it, or should the government have it. it's our money. we get to keep more of it. david: there you go. >> it's a beautiful thing. now, adam, what is your point? [laughter] >> where to start. first offirst of all, i know hee these names with love -- >> all love. >> so i'm going to surprise you
by saying, obviously, they worked. they worked completely in the way that they were intended to. they got earnings up because they got taxes down, they got enthusiasm going. and here's the but, you knew it was coming, it was a sugar high, and i don't need to work very high to cop slips you -- convince you of that either because now we're seeing the downside of it, and it's not going to help us one bit next year when the global economy contracts. and you're seeing it in the stock market. i don't have to convince you of that. >> adam, i would totally disagree with you, and here's why. to my, the biggest -- to me, the biggest thing about the tax cut, the most important thing was to attract american corporations' money from overseas, encourage investment here, encourage overseas companies to come here, etc. what i would say is it did in the first half produce those results, and in the third quarter a little less. ironically, i think -- i don't think it's a sugar high, i think that would have continued on as
a very powerful force in our economy encouraging, you know, again, business investment, productivity gains, etc. the problem is the trade war took the gloss off of that. it made everybody all of a sudden step back and say, whoa, there's some uncertainty here -- >> right. it wasn't enough. >> so i really disagree. i think we would be still powering into 2019 -- which, by the way, everyone anticipated until very recently except for the kind of overhang now of the trade battle. >> comrades, first of all -- [laughter] david: comrades. >> i don't think the trade battle is causing the market crash -- >> we're not talking about a market crash, we're talking about why investment did not continue at the rate it was in the first half. >> it's not because of tariffs. >> well, all the companies are saying it is. >> they're going to blame it on something. the tariff -- david: so what is it? >> there was a tech bubble brewing. the nasdaq is down 20%. it is not down that much because
of tariff wars. the corporate tax cut is manyfold larger than that. so that is a bogus story. now, as far as this tax cut, it is the opposite of a sugar high. a sugar high tax cut is when george bush sent checks in the mail to everybody -- david: the so-called stimulus. >> companies don't spend money stupid. they're just not going to go out and hire people because they got a tax cut. it was a very important tax cut for several reasons. one is it keeps america the number one destination for capital. you can't have a corporate tax system that's higher than other countries. it is also, it's streamlined the tax code for individuals. the hire -- a higher standard deduction is a great thing when you get rid of other b.s. deductions, state taxes that are too high, the real estate thing was too big a deduction people had, they got rid of that. now, where it failed, it was in the paying for it and the increased spending. you could argue that's the sugar high piece of it, and that's the
part where mistakes were made, and the deficit is growing -- david: let's not talk like the economy's in the dumpster yet. we're not in a recession yet. a minority, but a growing minority, small business optimism was one of the focuses of the tax cut. there were a lot of measures that specifically helped entrepreneurship. that's why i don't think it's right to call it a sugar high, because if you take -- the private sector doesn't constantly need suring. if you just pull back, they know how to create things. we're a creative country. >> so that's fine. to clarify, the high i was talking about is the stock market high. if you can boost earnings very quickly by lowering taxes, that worked. and that was your question, did it work. but that doesn't -- and repatriating foreign profits, that works too, but it just works once. so i don't disagree with what you're saying, david -- >> no, adam, it works forever -- >> here's my question.
here's my question, adam. you come from this from a perspective that the tax cuts are supposed to do something, like if they didn't do something, it's a sugar high, then maybe they weren't effective. why can't we go back to the point where it's the people and companies earning the money? why can't they keep more of their money just by default and have the government actually -- >> that's great. >> -- do less? it's not the government's job to make the economy run. david: okay, quick answer, adam. go ahead. >> except that very fine ideology except that we haven't asked the government to do less because the bill didn't cut spending. it said -- you know all this. and so we're going to -- david: adam, i think we all agree with you the government's spending too much money, and that should have been part of everything that's going on now, but it wasn't. meanwhile, president trump wants to lower drug prices, and elizabeth warren wants the government to step in and manufacture drugs, seriously. but what's the real solution to
affordable prescription prices? we'll debate that coming next. ♪ ♪ every other full-size pickup. and this year, it's déjà vu all over again. 'cuz only the ford f-150 gives you best-in-class torque, best-in-class payload . . . and you got it, baby . . . best-in-class towing. this is the big dog! this is the ford f-150. it doesn't just raise the bar, pal. it is the bar. and now, you can get a ford f-150 with zero percent financing for 72 months. only at your ford dealer.
trulicity is not insulin. it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. there's brushing...and there's oral-b power brushing. oral-b just cleans better. even my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada. oral-b. brush like a pro. (danny) after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. (danny) every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. quickbooks. backing you.
♪ david: reuters is reporting that nearly 30 big drug companies including bayer, novartis and amgen intend to raise prices in the next month, posing a new challenge to president trump's pledge to lower the cost of prescription medications. is this going to make senator warren's idea of creating this government drugmaker more appealing? what do you think? >> i think there is no way this idea of the government producing and also pricing drugs makes any sense whatsoever. all she needs to do is go to china, go to russia. look how state-owned enterprises almost always get it wrong, end up making things much more expensive and, basically, the taxpayer pays for it. i'm kind of shocked, actually, with the drug chain and system being so complicated that she would offer up such a sort of
hare-brained idea. >> first of all, medical care is very cheap in russia, i would just make that note. [laughter] david: to stay alive. >> the travesty of elizabeth warren trying to grab attention in her bid for running for president, there is a serious role for the government who's sat on the sidelines and has actually caused some of the problems in rising drug care, drug costs specifically. for example, there's -- a lot of these issues you could solve but, again, there's no political will. there's the patent problem, that's all government rules. the redoing of patent is a joke. the fact that they can advertise drugs to the public is so stupid and patently ridiculous, no other country, i think, than new zealand can do that. it just raises the cost. when you go to your doctor's office and you see an attractive person there, that is a sales rep for the pharmaceutical industry -- [laughter] >> you saying attractive people don't get ill? [laughter] >> there are -- the government could say health insurance is cheaper if you stay healthy.
a lot of this problem is consumption. we want to consume all these drugs. there are issues where there's drugs that are several thousand dollars a month that do nothing but marginally extend your life, and we don't want to touch these issues. we want a third party whether it's insurance or the government to pay for it. so, yes, there are a lot of roles here for the government. one is not making the drugs themselves. that is the last choice $well, i think jonas makes a ton of success. those are really good suggestions. i also think that the government should not get in the business of making drugs. that would be a disaster. but if i could throw a curveball into this, i have a prediction. i think next year you will see president trump and elizabeth warren and others get together, because they both really want to stick it to the drug companies. and i could see them doing, i could see them doing something together. david: i hope it's not this idea. >> yeah, i agree with what adam just said. there is a political will out there. however wrongly-based, stick it
to the drug companies just like obama tried to stick it to the oil manufacturers. look how that turned out, coal producers, etc. a couple comments on jonas. jeez, i'm sorry, jonas, that people want to consume drugs to extend their life a few more months, god forbid. people aren't going to cut down on that. the problem is, and you kind of went over very quickly, it's these patents. we don't have drug, competitive drug pricing because the drug companies are basically monopolies. that's fine, but they're allowed to extend their monopolies. david: yeah. >> sell gene makes a cancer drug, you know the patent has been extended on that to 2036? these companies make minor changes, they get the fda to extend these patents, and it goes out 40, 50 years. that's why the generics can't come in. you cut back on that, you cut back on the monopolies -- >> so, gary -- david: but still, when the incentives that we have in a private system now, you've got
these incredible inventions. inmoon no therapy, by the way, is one of the most fast growing, real promising movements in the truck companies. that kind of innovation i don't think you can see with any kind of government drug company, to you? >> i would totally agree. i'm just saying that the companies are, should make a fair return on their billion dollar investment. it just shouldn't be over 40, 50 years, is my point. >> so, gary, met me ask you -- let me ask you something. why haven't anyone done anything about it, number one. number two, could you see donald trump and elizabeth warren coming together to do something about that patent issue? >> yeah, i would be all in favor of that. why is it, why is it that the basically our national defense is in the hands of a few private contractors? it's the same way. government and pharmaceuticals are actually more together -- in fact, the whole health care is one big monopoly just like the defense industry is one big monopoly. look, i'm all for free markets. this is where the government
should step in and insure free markets. david: we had a bipartisan deal on criminal justice, so maybe we'll get one on dug prices. we are awaiting comments from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell at any moment as we move closer to the shutdown deadline. we will take you there live as soon as senator mcconnell begins to speak. also, another wild week of market swings as the dow is on track for its worst december in decades. what one sec official is proposing now to calm this dramatic swing that we're in the middle of. will it work? we'll debate that coming next. proven to both reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease... ...and lower a1c, with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing.
stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. isn't it time to rethink your type 2 diabetes medication? ask your doctor about jardiance- and get to the heart of what matters.
ask your doctor about jardiance- ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ this holiday season, families near you need your help. visit redcross.org now to donate. david: we want to give you a little background what you're seeing now on the senate floor. senators are beginning to come in. you know, a lot of senators actually left for vacation. they tried to fly some of them back in for this vote. senator mcconnell is due to speak very soon. you can see him on that shot on the right side there. when he does, we'll take that live. but he's been talking to a lot
of different senators, both republicans and democrats. he was talking to senator coons, a democrat from delaware, just moments ago. this vote has now been open for five hours. that's significant because the longest, the record for longest senate vote is five hours and fifteen minutes. so this is practically historic. as soon as mcconnell bins to speak, or we'll bring that live. meanwhile, treasury secretary steve mnuchin is blaming market volatility on machine trading. roll the tape. >> i think that with the advent of computerized trading which has such a big part of the market now combined with the volcker rule where you can't have market makers commit capital, you just have much bigger moves in both directions. and i think clearly you have a situation here where the market has overreacted to the fed's comments, and you see program trading taking over. david: now also fueling calls for more oversight here is coming from at least one departing sec official who wrote
market swings we've seen lately, is she right? that's the question. what do you think? >> i feel like trump tower, we're just breaking ground on it. you know what? they've always tried to blame the robots on these crashes. in '29, they were saying the taker -- >> david: you don't buy it. >> you know what? i don't like the fact that we're moving to such high velocity investing. i don't like the atfs making one thing you need to go in and out every few minutes. that saiding you cannot blame the robots on trillion dollar market cap companies not being a able to support that valuation or things going wrong. that was our own doing. don't blame the a.i.. >> i think it is about 50 or 60% of trading volume now done by computers, and actually i think that the volcker rule change is probably more significant than simply the amount -- computers have been doing this for a long time. they've been a factor in the marketplace. i think what has changed is the
amount of capital on the sidelines that can be committed to basically even out these swings. that is no longer this. >> i thought mnuchin was fine until he said there's been an overreaction. he shouldn't be commenting on whether or not there's been an overreaction or if it's an appropriate amount down. but more attention to the effects the machines have? i think that's a good idea. now, what to do? i don't know. but they could have oversight over the machines. >> they do have oversight -- >> i totally -- i don't agree with you, adam. look, here's the thing, there's this old timey notion that somehow investing should be years and decades, like warren buffett -- >> i'm not saying that. >> what is the right time frame? is it minutes, is it days, is it seconds? who cares? all that's happening is computers are taking over what humans would be making the decision. humans would take a minute, machines can do it in second. what's the big deal? i love it when government
decides this is the right way to do it. that's so much b.s. >> because it can be minuted. you have to prove it can't be. if it can't, then great. >> you could have manipulation now with just humans doing it. >> i understand. >> there was humans doing things when there was or floor traders. >> the most manipulation on wall street was before the 1920s, before any of this stuff went robotic. >> before the sec. >> right. that's people. i mean, it's what you make the computer do that's manipulating. there are regulations -- david: there are regulations, but we've seen regulators try to catch up with technology before, and it's been a disaster. [laughter] >> i was going to say that. you know, before they start trying to regulate this, you know, maybe be schooled in how it works. we've seen in recent hearings that's just not going to happen. there's no appetite for that whatsoever. david: we are still awaiting comments from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. at any moment he's going to be speaking in front of his senate
colleagues. they've been trying to gather as many become as possible -- many back as possible so they can vote on whether or not we're going to pass a budget with a border wall built into it, the $5 billion the president wants. as soon as mitch mcconnell begins speaking, we'll go to that live. meanwhile, two bipartisan lawmakers unveiling a new carbon tax, the same thing that's causing riots in the streets of europe. are there lessons to be learned here from what's happening there? we'll debate it next. ♪ ♪ building a better bank
starts with looking at something old, and saying, "really?" so capital one is building something completely new. capital one cafes. inviting places with people here to help you, not sell you. and savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. because that's how it should be. you can open one from right here or anywhere in 5 minutes. seriously, 5 minutes... this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet?
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.
david: weaver still awaiting mitch mcconnell to speak before the senate. of a all the things, there is actually supposedly -- and this is according to our own chad pergram who we saw at the top of the show -- a new sense of optimism. some republican senators believe that there may be a possibility of getting everybody together on a couple of new spending bills, one of which would apparently last for a full year. we haven't seen one of those long-term spending bills for a while. there you see jeff flake down on the bottom left of your screen. looks like they're trying to cobble something together. again, they're very close if they haven't already gone beyond a historic record of being the longest senate vote of all times which was 5 hours and 15
minutes. i think they're beyond that now. chad would know. again, they would add a little bit of wall funding, though much less than what the president wants, so it's not clear whether he would sign it even if they do pass it. we'll keep you updated. meanwhile, after all the riots in france over a carbon tax, now sign that is the anti-carbon tax protests are spreading to portugal and elsewhere. senators jeff flake, who we just saw, and chris coons, a democrat, have decided that a carbon tax is just what americans need. senator flake brags that his bill will, quote, provide an honest path to clean energy. but would a flake-coons carbon tax cause the same kind of popular uprising in america that we've seen over in europe? what do you think? >> well, actually, what they've done is coupled that with a rebate that would go out to the american people from any tax that was imposed. look, this is just an enormously massive new government program which would ultimately be a bad thing for our economy because one of america's great
competitive advantages is incredibly cheap energy. and as we have transferred to natural gas from coal, we have seen emissions come down in the u.s. so i think it's a really poor idea, but it's going to keep coming up because all these very alarmist studies keep showing that climate is under duress. >> well, it's going to keep coming up because the climate is under duress and because it's a good idea. and no matter what's happening in france and portugal, carbon taxes are good for all sorts of reasons. they have all sorts of good impacts. but, david, am i mistaken, isn't jeff flake leaving the senate in, like, 15 minutes? [laughter] >> his someone -- swan song. david: he still has time to sponsor a last minute carbon tax. >> adam should just give up and move to europe. [laughter] that's where you belong, my friend. >> i've thought about it. >> you love the food there. please move to europe -- >> he's in california. david: close. >> yeah.
>> i agree with liz. at best this is nothing more than a money transfer, and here's the sad part, who's going to be hurt the worst? it's going to be the middle and poor here because carbon taxes -- david: okay. hey, gary, i hate to interrupt you, but mitch mcconnell is speaking, we promised to bring that to you live. here he is, the senate leader. >> disaster relief and border security. within the republican conference, there is strong the support for the president's reasonable request for more resources to tackle the urgent situation at our southern border. republicans support the house-passed bill which includes additional border security funding, and we're also, however, eager to complete the remaining appropriation bills which the senate has already papassed. passed. however, obviously, since any eventual solution requires 60
votes here in the senate, it's been clear from the beginning that two things are necessary. support from enough senate democrats to pass the proposal at 60 and a presidential signature. as a result, the senate has voted to proceed to legislation before us in order, in order to preserve maximum flexibility for productive conversation to continue between the white house and our democratic colleagues. i hope senate democrats will work with the white house on an agreement that can pass both houses of congress. and receive the president's signature. so, colleagues, when an agreement is reached, it will receive a vote here on the senate floor. i move to concur in the house
amendment to the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment -- [laughter] to h.r. 695. >> the motion is pending. [laughter] >> mr. president. >> the democratic leader. >> as we said to president trump a week ago, his wall does not have 60 votes here in the senate, let alone 50 votes. that much is now clear. democrats have offered three proposals to keep the government open including a proposal offered by leader mcconnell that passed the senate unanimously only a few days ago. we are willing to continue discussions on those proposals with the leader, the president, the speaker of the house and the leader of the house. all five are necessary to get something done. yield the floor. >> mr. president? david: so there you hear, you heard it. what's happening is there's so
many different appropriations bills, there's at least seven that we know that have passed through that we're waiting for confirmation. they're trying to find a way to shoe horn a little bit of wall funding in what they have already agreed to to pass. they're able to do that, they're going to be passing about six of the seven appropriations bills now that are in the process of going true the whole -- going through the whole mechanism. you heard him say the house bill with the senate bill with the house bill. this is senator corker, who's leaving the senate from the republican side, he's kind of a dealmaker. let's listen to him. >> so there won't be test votes, not going to be a tabling vote. and the vice president's been over here with his members negotiating already. what this does, i think, is push this ahead to a negotiation that yields a result and does the best we can to keep from shutting down government. or if it does shut down, shutting down very briefly. so i want to thank the two leaders for agreeing to go forward in this manner.
it allows us to move forward in a positive way, and yet it keeps negotiations alive. only a bill can pass this chamber now that that has all of their agreements, and i thank them for going guard in this manner. david: okay. so all of the peacemakers are trying to get their licks in. i saw jeff flake get up after that. there's jeff flake speaking. of course, he's leaving the senate as well. this is his last song. let's take a listen. >> to insure that the next vote that we have in this chamber will be on an agreement. as senator corker said, not a test vote, not a cloture vote. what i wanted to do with not proceeding is to demonstrate that there, that not all republicans would be for the house bill either. there is no path forward for the house bill. the only path forward is to a bill that has an agreement between the president and both
houses of congress. and the next time we vote will be on the agreement, not another test vote. so with that, i yield back. >> mr. president? >> senator from tennessee. >> mr. president, i ask consent that following my remarks the senator from delaware, senator coons, be recognized. >> is there objection? without objection. >> mr. president, i want to thank senator corker, senator flake, senator mcconnell and schumer and the leaders for their discussions, the vice president, i thank him for his presence here today. in my own view, government shutdowns ought not to be the part of negotiations any more than chemical weapons should be a part of warfare. and we were elected to make the government run for taxpayers, not to shut it down. so my hope is that this will put us on a path toward a result and recognize the president's desire for increased border security which we support, which many
democrats support as well, and we can finish our appropriations process. what i'd like to do now is say a few words about what was described in a very famous movie in which jimmy stewart played, mr. smith goes to washington, as democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off. the legislative fill hi buster. filibuster. unless someone say, well, senator alexander -- david: okay. we're going to break in here a little built these are the classic inside the beltway dealmakers who are trying to have their last licks at cobbling something together. it did seem, as i said from chad pergram -- and i'll bring liz in here, because you know washington well -- that there's optimism about the possibility of shoe morning some kind of
wall -- shoe morning some kind of finish. >> i'm not actually sure what they want. what they want now is something that the president will sign. it's made clear the house bill is not going anywhere. so i'm not quite sure where they're expecting the house to reto their vote on something they come up with -- david: well, you already heard mcconnell said you'd have to have -- this this is a supplemental of the house bill on the senate bill on the house bill on the senate -- i mean, he had to laugh at it. >> i'm glad he's keeping track. [laughter] >> yeah, but i wasn't sure that he was. [laughter] i still don't. i think liz asked the right question. isn't the assumption here, david, that whatever they negotiate has to then be voted on by the house? david: exactly. >> so i'm confused, because i thought they went home. dared dared we're back to square one. and the problem is, obviously, on january 2nd we have a new house, a new party takes over the house of representatives, and there is a chance, gary b.,
i would say a strong chance of some serious holes to try to prevent anything from getting done seen as an advantage to president trump. >> although, you'd then have -- >> this is why they want to rush this through now while they have the very slightest of advantages. you watch when, you know, congress changes over. the you know what is going to hit the fan for president trump hard and often. >> and i was just going to say we also have a new senate coming in, of course, and that will be an easier senate for president trump because flake is going to be gone and some of the other anti-- david: corker will be gone. >> so he'll be in better shape there. even so, i don't see how this really works. >> you know, obama got his crazy health care thing passed in two years that nobody wanted, and these guys couldn't build a wall that the president and the people wanted. it's just about money. that's all they had to do. they failed, and the only one
being honest are the people or that are retiring and not seeking rerex. it's a brief time in the history of a david: we were just talking about carbon tax. when the democrats were in control, they had a chance to pass the carbon tax. nancy pelosi who was speaker at that time, she punted that ball, and she punted on immigration. >> the trump administration's priorities were tax reform and they got that done. >> i would argue the public voted they were more concerned about the wall than corporate taxes. >> it's called leadership. david: leadership is also to a certain degree taking executive action on things like
regulation. there is a lot of deregulation. thank you for rolling with the punches. i appreciate you sticking with us. thank you for watching. we'll see you next time, stay with us. liz: this is high stakes drama. this is sausage making in real-time. senate lawmakers scrambling to pass a bill with funding for the border wall that the president wants. this is all before the clock runs out at midnight. they are going at it tooth and nail. it looks like what you would see in the u.k. parliament. the government could go into a partial shutdown tonight. we are just hours away from that. the receipt i can is really heated. vice president michael pence just broke a 47-47 tie in the senate just on a motion