tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News January 5, 2016 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
folks first read about a way to make the invisible visible 120 years ago today. when news breaks out, we'll break in. because breaking news changes everything on fox news. gun lobby may be holding congress hostage right now but they cannot hold america hostage. we do not have to accept the -- >> i can tell you right now those executive orders are not worth the paper they're printed on. >> when you overturn executive -- >> yes, again, i'll overturn anything that is unconstitutional and anything that undermines the second amendment is unconstitutional. >> welcome, everybody. you're watching "your world." if this is supposed to put the kibosh on guns, gun stocks had a funny way of showing it today. look at two of the biggest
manufacturers responding to these developments under the idea here that people will be more inclined to rush and get guns now and take a look at how the -- so the biggest gun producers weaponsmakers in the united states have fared since barack obama took office. they are one of his best performing stocks. little weird. but no less weird than what has been a very different and split reaction in the capital to what he's planning. james rosen at the white house. >> an extraordinary appearance by the president in the east room today, flanked by american citizens impacted by gun violence. a rambling sometimes drifting 35 minute speech in which the president wiped away tears. also showed scorn and disdain for his opponents on this issue. but here is a breakdown of exactly what these new executive actions amount to. they're not executive orders. they're guidance being issued to law enforcement agencies and federal rules, some of which less susceptible to legal challenge. bureau of alcohol, tobacco, fire
arms and explosives will require anyone selling a firearm in a store, online, in a gun show, to be licensed by the federal government. this could apply to sellers offering as few as two guns. dealers who ship firearms will have to notify law enforcement if the guns they ship are lost or stolen. it will be easier for states to share information about americans who are prohibited from possessing fire arms due to mental health reasons. and the fbi will hire upwards of 230 new people to process background checks. now going to be doing that 24/7. and those acquiring a gun through trust and corporates will need a background check. the federal government will conduct expanded research into gun safety technology. the nra was swift to issue a statement dismissing what it called the president's emotional condescending lecture. tonight we'll have exclusive on camera reaction from wayne lapierre, the head of the nra. >> thank you, james, very, very
much. the presidential candidates on the republican side are divided on whether the president is overstepping his bounds here. and whether there is any middle ground. they say, no, call them orders or executive actions, it is not going to fly with them. jena goldberg on what is the meaning of any executive action if it is just undone by the next guy coming in? where is this all going to? >> well, i mean, first of all, one of the most important things to keep in mind, like a tom wolf novel here. the groups, there are two basic groups there heavily invested in wanting this to be a very big deal. barack obama and the democratic party, who want to make this sound like it is a very dramatic and important thing and the gun industry who want to make this into a much bigger threat on gun rights than it probably is. this has been -- as you said in the beginning, this is very good for gun sales, this is very good for gun manufacturers because one of the regulations or orders or actions, whatever you want to call it, will be like a wet blanket on the secondary used
gun market. and when you do that, that pushes people into the new gun market. and it is fantastic for nra fund-raising and it is fantastic for hillary clinton's fund-raising. as a matter of public policy, much of this is really kind of trivial, some of it may be in fact unconstitutional, though, in one small respect, the president of the united states is not allowed to invent new categories of crime and expect some tangible and serious lawsuits if anyone is prosecuted under some of those things, but generally this is a lot of drama, a light show, and i think that as james suggested in this report, the president's condescension and his insults of his opponents and all of that will please his base and hillary clinton's base, and it will infuriate the republican base and so it is sort of a win-win for the forces of polarization. >> i guess when i'm wondering about is whether it is a successful wedge issue. you could argue that republicans that will be on defense, what are you doing about the gun
situation. almost tempting, nothing the president wants to do. even though they may be perfectly valid, arguing for second amendment rights and all of that, it will look like they will not bend on the issues with the president has said even progun types have said there could be common ground, for example, on better enforcement checks and background checks where they could find common ground. what do you think? >> it is possible. i suspect that this -- this is a much better issue for both parties in the primaries than it will be in the general election. and a lot of the polling that you hear from barack obama and other people about how nine out of ten people are in favor of the background checks and all of that, if you dig deep near the polling, it is more xla cacompl than that. there isn't a lot of support for president obama to unilaterally do these things. the most popular stuff is on the mental health side, which president obama has been
reluctant to embrace as a stand alone thing because he wants to attach the rest of his agenda to the popular parts. old tactic here in washington. but, you know, the record shows that generally speaking social issues are better for democrats when it comes to fund-raising and better for republicans when it comes to voting. and my sense is that hillary clinton will try to find some way to sort of not sound as radical on gun rights when it comes time for the general election but this is really activating the nra, the gun right -- the second amendment supporting base and i think it is very good overall for the republicans. >> do you think that it is another effort on the part of the president to be very consequential, not only eighth year president that he wants to be out there, he wants to be front and center, a lot of presidents get lost in the sauce as we look at their successor. >> yeah, i think he wants to see -- he keeps saying it and sometimes that's a tell. you have to keep saying something, it is a sign you're worried people don't believe
you. he keeps saying he's going to keep working, pushing his agenda, doing all the things he got there to do until his last day. he keeps saying this is my job. and the -- part of the problem with that is his job, if you read his job description in the document, called the constitution, it says that his job is to faithfully execute the laws of the land. not to come up with your own laws. not just gun stuff, but executive orders going way back where he's just sort of inventing law because he thinks that is his job. that's not his job and i think that people that that act kind of gets boring and gets annoying for people who aren't part of his sort of kool-aid drinking base. >> thank you very much. good seeing you again. >> great to be here, thank you. it has been about a month, but we're getting new details or authorities want to get new details on what the couple was doing over a certain period of time. trace gallagher with the latest on that. trace.
>> fascinating between more than 500 interview s, traffic cameras and surveillance cameras, the fbi was able to really piece together every move made by the killers except for 18 critical minutes. with he know syed farook arrived at the medical center at 8:47 west coast time. there for nearly two hours and despite previous reports there was no confrontation between farook and another employee. so he leaves at 10:37, comes back 19 minutes later, with his wife and then they open fire. they leave the regional center a few minutes after that and then for 45 minutes they drove around in their suv. the fbi says they zigzagged around, on the freeway, off the freeway, driving back around the scene of the massacre. and then they head out to a nearby lake and now we know the only reason they spent several days searching the lake is because the killers went and sat there for a while. from 12:59 to 1:17, the investigation goes dark.
there is a hole in the timeline. and the fbi is now asking for the public's health because those 18 minutes are critical. listen. >> it is critical because it is possible, again, possible that they stopped at whether a storage area, residence, business, it is possible there was a contact made, we just don't know, it very well may not be an important fact. but until we close that gap, we just don't know for sure. >> in other words, did they drop something off, or pick something up, did they meet with someone who might have been helping them in some capacity? they were loaded down with firepower. the fbi does not have any evidence that a second attack was planned, but they certainly haven't ruled that out. it was at 2:52 local time police spotted the killers driving the suv, that he's when the chase and the shootout began. the feds don't believe the attack was directed by foreign sources but if that was isis inspired and those 18 minutes could give them a much better feel for the overall motivation,
neil. >> so the possibility that in this 18 minute period they were or authorities fear they could have been meeting with others who may have been involved in this attack or a planned attack. >> yeah, exactly, or dropping things off at a storage facility, going to somebody's house, meeting with someone who might have been giving them guidance or dropping something off to someone who might have been hiding something for them. that's why they want an idea and want the public's help to give them feedback. did anybody see an suv? did anybody come in contact with them? if they can fill in that gap, they can really get a better idea of how to kind of tie up the ends of this entire investigation. >> great reporting, trace. thank you very much. trace gallagher. all right, well, we know about 17 gitmo detainees released and we also know that they have links to al qaeda. so what could possibly go wrong?
days after the paris attacks, senators came together for a top-secret briefing on the terrorist threat... marco rubio was missing - fundraising in california instead. two weeks later, terrorists struck again in san bernardino...
and where was marco? fundraising again in new orleans. over the last 3 years, rubio has missed important national security hearings and missed more total votes than any other senator. politics first: that's the rubio way. right to rise usa is responsible for the content of this message.
an interesting item to pass along. a u.s. magistrate judge agreed to delay the deposition of cosby's wife in connection with the defamation lawsuit filed against him by seven women who accused him of sexual assault. again, this was considered to be crucial to the prosecutors who wanted to question cosby's wife on how much he knew and what she either had condoned or accepted or whether she was involved in any of this.
bottom line here is she will not have to be part of this deposition process. and that it will be delayed. for how long, we don't know. all right, we got more news on the gitmo transfers. the problem with some of those emptying out is they have some dangerous ties. why these particular detainees are of such interest. >> fox news told us 17 detainees who will be released from u.s. custody include al qaeda followers and under the bush administration the men were assessed to be significant terrorists. today, the defense department says secretary carter who personally assigned off on every transfer is comfortable with his decision. >> how this congress reacts to the administration on his executive action of gun control will tell the administration once again how they're likely to react if he just closes gitmo by
fiat. if they do nothing, just make a bunch of speeches and beat their chests, then they know that that's -- there is no there there. >> the administration will not identify the men before they're transferred out of the camps and to the new home can countries because knowing who they are in advance could delay or derail the transfer process. the obama white house prides itself on having a better track record than the bush administration when it comes to vetting detainees but this 2012 transfer of el cozy is a source of considerable heartburn for the white house. according to a recent pop grandia video, he's a leader of the most dangerous affiliate in yemen behind the charlie hebdo massacre in paris last year.
>> do we know whether he can do that? he's done this a lot by executive action, he can -- >> well, there is certainly real concern on capitol hill that the president will choose to do so and that they have directly warned members of the military that if they take these -- if they take any movement, to get the detainees out of guantanamo, there could be legal consequences for them. so congress clearly believes that it is illegal to move them. the question is whether the president will see what happens with the gun actions today, and assess that there is really not a lot of negative fallout for him to take executive action and he may as well close gitmo because that's the case. >> he would succeed in doing that. thank you. benecol ly collins served his c nobly. ben, that scares me, that part, the al qaeda part scares me where they specifically go
scares me. what do you think? >> well, look, we have seen this play out before. as catherine mentioned, elle c was one of the confidants and bin laden sent him to the sudan. the same sudan on the terrorism watch list, state sponsored list, by the way, for 23 years, since 1993. the same sudan that borders libya, the same sudan that harbored bin laden. so their plan to make sure i've got this right, their plan was to send a known al qaeda terrorist to the sudan for re-education and reintegration. today the defense department said they were able to mitigate risks. this is a policy that sounds like it is straight out of the mel brooks movie. to send somebody to the sudan for reintegration into society from a terrorist organization. it is crazy. >> i think the idea from the beginning was american courts, they're coming to new york or
chicago, and that's how they would be dealt with. now we're skipping that and going to go. and they can go anywhere they want. >> and, look, under the geneva convention, even though these guys are terrorists, we have the authority to hold these guys for as long as the conflict ensues. i figured that was a political decision. i think obama faced a whole lot of political backlash when he started talking about putting these terrorists through the civilian courts and putting them in u.s. jails. and he got that from republicans and democrats. so this is something that he's trying to do, you know, in the dead of night. and to catherine's point, we don't know who the people are. this is a list that they're holding back, right, so we have no idea until it is too late that these people are al qaeda sympathizers and going back into the organization and the recidivism rate is 30%. >> we have good relations with the countries to whom they're going. and certainly the case of sudan, it is a little dicey.
>> absolutely. >> ben, thank you very much. always good seeing you you thank you, neil. all right, well, here's why marco rubio is in all-out drive to make sure he can keep that second place position he enjoys in a lot of the polls in new hampshire. he's worried about a lot of people behind him. he's going all out. but i mean, all out. the fallout from that and why even if he does place second in the end, not a bad place to be. just ask jimmy carter. just ask bill clinton.
hampshire tonight has made bill clinton the comeback kid. >> and even though he finished second in new hampshire, he was almost given up for politically dead with all sorts of allegations of infidelity and business fields and even though paul tsongas would take the primary, bill clinton was off to the races. so there is something to be said with not necessarily getting the brass ring, but close, the silver ring in this case. jimmy carter with the iowa caucuses, he won the caucuses but by coming in second. we know what happened to him. we know what happened to bill. now you might better understand why marco rubio might be content with taking second as he's polled presently in new hampshire and to hang on to that, assuming as both stand it is donald trump who wins the granite state. there are no guarantees and polls can fluctuate. but real clear politics reporter
kate berns says second is okay. how do you think this all factors out and the fact that rubio is going all out to make sure he gets at least that? >> the race so far this cycle is who can take on donald trump. and so you're right, republicans in these early states and near new hampshire are under the assumption that donald trump will win. so it is a matter of who comes in second, who can consolidate that kind of mainstream more establishment oriented lane and clear the field a little bit to make it more of a one on one contest with donald trump. so in new hampshire, you have marco rubio competing. you also have chris christie who is really staked his entire campaign on the granite state. >> yeah, christie's case, i mean, third, i guess could be good enough, but anyone placing fourth, then it starts getting dicey, right? >> it is harder it make a case for why you should continue. if you're not able to place in
that top tier. and as we talked about before, neil, the delegates are at stake here. new hampshire is worth delegates proportionally and get 10% of the votes to get delegates. it matters in that sense too. >> everyone says it will be different this time and i'm always leery when experts like you say it is never different this time. but that maybe iowa and new hampshire as well won't be as crucial, that i heard some on the left say there is a scenario in which hillary clinton could lose iowa and new hampshire, still go on to win. donald trump could lose iowa and new hampshire, still go on to win. ditto marco rubio, he could stumble out the gate in iowa and new hampshire and still -- he's in better shape than some of those follow-up s.e.c. primaries and caucuses. do you buy that? >> well, i think in hillary clinton's case, i think, you know, a loss in iowa would just be a personal blow given her history with the state. she would be able to absorb the losses and really all the other states in 2008. but when you're looking at these
other candidates, it is a kind of different race here. donald trump could potentially lose iowa and then go on to new hampshire. you can have a scenario in which, you know, like you mentioned, marco rubio doesn't win iowa or new hampshire, but then goes perhaps to a place like south carolina or nevada. it is the calendar that this time around is different too, shorter and there is more of an emphasis on those southern states, that s.e.c. primary that votes on march 1st, and that's why ted cruz is among all the candidates best positioned and really looking to that primary. >> if you were to lose, that's the danger of peaking at this time with still a few weeks to go in iowa where he's ahead. seven to ten points. if he were to squeak by there or actually lose there, even second, that might hurt him, right? >> i think so. i think it would be a blow to momentum, right?
i mean, attention in this race is at a premium. it always is. in this cycle especially. it is being able to shape the story line coming out of the races. so that's why, you know, winning second in new hampshire can be sold as a win. we saw bill clinton do that certainly, but i think we're going to see, you know, chris christie or marco rubio or jeb bush or john kasich, whoever comes in that second or third place spot is certainly going to sell that as -- >> absolutely. can't be fourth. here is where i agree with you, can't be fourth. got to get gold, silver or bronze. i just made that up. i have no idea. >> i like the analogy. >> i defer to you. i appreciate it. just a reminder on these things and all politics, next week in charleston, south carolina, for the first presidential debate of the new year. fox business honored to get a chance at talking to these candidates. and the good people getting to
sthee see them. had a lot of food offers and, you know, the ladies, as beautiful as they are, they're not into the barbecue thing, they're not into all of this, so i said i would just eat whatever they are putting aside. so you know me in charleston, you know what i'm talking about. keep it coming. look forward to it next week. social security, gun thing with the president, so it is news that matters to you. no matter if it is business or not. speaking of business that has main street implications, bernie sanders was saying today about wall street greed, let's just say it wasn't douglas greed is good. quite the opposite. i'm sure that doesn't surprise you. maybe the reaction he got will. ♪
♪ (cell phone rings) where are you? well the squirrels are back in the attic. mom? your dad won't call an exterminator... can i call you back, mom? he says it's personal this time... if you're a mom, you call at the worst time. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. where are you? it's very loud there. are you taking a zumba class?
in my business i cbailing me out my i.all the time... i'm not the i.t. guy. i'm the desktop support tech supervisor. and my customers knowing right when their packages arrive. introducing real-time delivery notifications. learn more at myusps.com see the crowds in massachusetts for one donald trump. what if i told you he's the biggest sensation this is 29 degree weather in massachusetts. we're back in 60.
>> you know that might not be a popular sentiment on wall street, but bernie sanders has been consistent saying that the rich, especially those in the financial community, have more to take advantage of the system and it resonates with the base and the party that pretty much proves his point because they give him a lot of money and he is running ahead of hillary clinton in new hampshire. it is a tossup in iowa. so who is to dismiss this guy, especially with the kind of language he's using. market watcher kimberly doesn't like what she's hearing or the anti-wall street message he's sending. not a fan i guess. >> not a fan at all. i was not surprised his comments, i was surprised at the reaction, but as i recall, our founding fathers came to this country to create so that we could create wealth and could create choice for ourselves with limited government. limited government, neil. not more regulation and to limit
capitalism. if i recall, money flows to where it is rewarded. and, you know, the checks and balances on wall street is competition. and that keeps fear and greed in check. >> but you're right for the most part. i think most of them on wall street are perfectly fine, not evil, they're not like these big short guys you see in movies and books, where they're portrayed as machiavellian creeps. some are. i wonder if it feeds the narrative in the base for the democratic party that can't be trusted, they bailed out and they have a nerve to elect others on bailouts and he's hitting a chord with a lot of people who want someone to pick up the tab for college, someone to pick up the tab for mortgages in arrears and who better to target than wall street 1%er fat cats. >> but a lot of those 1%ers are the ones that took the risk to create the wealth. >> no doubt. i'm just talking that base. all i'm saying is i think this is a key to his appeal within
the democratic party and why i do not dismiss his chances of getting the democratic nomination. >> no. i do not -- i can't tell you if he's going to get the nomination or not. i seriously doubt he will. >> go ahead. i have no idea. >> the bottom line is, you know, he's basically, you know, preying on the fact that people will go against, you know, big corporations, making lots of money, and that they'll, you know, free phones, free everything for the government. the problem is when the government starts to have that kind of control, then people lose their choice in life. >> it is a logical -- i talked to young college kids who demonstrated, one young woman on my show, not too long ago, darn thing went viral, she said, yeah, i want the 1% for college and pay for my parents mortgage in arrears. i did the math for her, i said,
you can't cover it, taxing 100%, she didn't care. >> she doesn't care because it doesn't affect her. wait until 10 or 15 years when she has kids and a mortgage and all that, right? then they're going to -- the chicken will come home to roost. the bottom line is money is a tool for choice. and these millennials have to figure out another 10, 15 years they want to have a choice and they're not going to want to have a government basically saying, hey, listen, you know what, you need a liver transplant, there isn't enough liver transplants. if you have money, you can go and get a concierge service and get the liver transplant and save your life. that's the bottom line. >> a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. good to see you. happy new year. >> happy new year to you. i want to show you something, we were talking, these are crowds that gathered for donald trump in 29 degree
gegiving up all the thingsan she loves to do. it should just mean, well, finding new ways to do them. right at home's professional team thoughtfully selects caregivers to provide help with personal care, housekeeping, and of course, meal preparation. oh, that smells so good. aw, and it tastes good, too. we can provide the right care, right at home. you know the symptoms when they start. abdominal pain. urgent diarrhea. now there's prescription xifaxan.
xifaxan is a new ibs-d treatment that helps relieve your diarrhea and abdominal pain symptoms. and xifaxan works differently. it's a prescription antibiotic that acts mainly in the digestive tract. do not use xifaxan if you have a history of sensitivity to rifaximin, rifamycin antibiotic agents, or any components of xifaxan. tell your doctor right away if your diarrhea worsens while taking xifaxan, as this may be a sign of a serious or even fatal condition. tell your doctor if you have liver disease or are taking other medications, because these may increase the amount of xifaxan in your body. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, plan on becoming pregnant, or are nursing. the most common side effects are nausea and an increase in liver enzymes. if you think you have ibs with diarrhea, talk to your doctor about new xifaxan.
amazing. this is incredible. who knew. i knew it was going to be good. who knew? a big crowd for donald trump rally last night in massachusetts. lowell, massachusetts. very long lines and frigid temperatures. look at this. 29 degrees in there. they're all, you know, huddling up, trying to stay warm. my only point in saying this is i don't care what numbers you see on donald trump, my own view on this stuff is forget about whether they're overstating the
popularity, what if they're understating it. radio talk show host tina loudon on that. what do you make of what we're witnessing here? a lot of people like to dismiss this and say they'll never come out and vote in a state like iowa, never go through that. what do you think? >> you know, it reminds me, neil, of the temperatures braved by tea partiers who believed the entire future of their country was at stake. i think that's the way trump supporters see this. if you talk to them, that's what they say. this is our last chance to save our country and they believe donald trump is the man to do it. >> you read into, as i read, waiting for donald trump or not, here is my theory, i think there are a lot of people who will never say they support donald trump. but secretly they will. and i'm old enough to remember, much older than you, lung layou,
where people said they would never support ronald reagan, he's an actor and governor, said trees cause pollution. those polls are fairly even. he ended up winning by a landslide. i'm not saying there were different factors there, but i am saying sometimes you read inflexion points in elections where people say one thing and do quite another. what do you think? >> you make an excellent point. the technical word for that is the bradley effect. and i'm sure you're familiar. basically what happens, yeah, basically what happens, neil, is that the left has so successfully branded him a hater, branded donald trump a hater, that people are afraid to admit that they like his ideas. and so in a live television -- a live telephone poll, they may say, no, i won't vote for donald trump. you're right, neil, his numbers may astound us in the number of people who don't want to admit that they're going to vote for donald trump to telephone pollster, for example, but when they are alone in that ballot
box, watch what happens. i think the number -- i think the numbers in iowa will surprise us. >> i'm sorry. you're not of the view that when people do get in the privacy of the ballot box or close the little curtain, quite the opposite. i really can't do this. i can't. just the opposite. >> i think that people feel like they can vote for him, even despite some of his really obvious very human flaws. i think people feel like desperate times call for desperate measures and i think people at the time when reagan became president as you so aptly pointed out, people saw it as life or death. we were going down in a nuclear explosion. people see this president, instead of confronting islamic terror, talking about more gun control, i think people see us in a time period where no one else is making the strong stances that donald trump is willing to make, and i think that people, when they get alone in that ballot box, they'll be thinking about their kids future and thinking, you know what, i trust someone strong like a
donald trump who will just say it like he sees it to continue saying it like he sees it and maybe we have a chance of actually preserving our children's future. >> gina loudon, thank you very much. a reminder to -- we're not comparing donald trump to ronald reagan or ronald reagan to donald trump. the phenomenon of people who say one thing and vote another, and what if the opposite were true against the consensus that those who say they'll vote for donald trump end up not doing so. what if those who say they would never vote for donald trump do so. that's more positive. i want you to think about that during the break. that's your homework assignment. more including ben stein's view that all this fuss about china really is about to school us on that. and charles payne is about to remind us that, you know what, sometimes the mainstream media can can be very, very wrong. after this. this is how banks used to see me. ever since i had a pretty bad accident three years ago. the medical bills - the credit card debt all piled up.
i knew i had to get serious my credit. so i signed up for experian. they have real, live credit experts i can talk to. they helped educate me on how debt affected my fico score. so i could finally start managing my credit. now my credit and i - are both healing nicely. get serious about your credit. get experian. go to experian.com and start your credit tracker trial membership today. gas mileage, horse power, on ttorque ratios... three spreadsheets later, you finally bring home the one... then smash it into a tree. your insurance company is all too happy to raise your rates... maybe you should've done a little more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.
test. test. test. test test. test test. te we're always looking for ways to speed up your car insurance search. here's the latest. problem is, we haven't figured out how to reverse it. for now, just log on to compare.com... plug in some simple info and get up to 50 free quotes. choose the lowest and hit purchase. now...if you'll excuse me, i'm late for an important function. compare.com.
. here's my theory on dr. doom, you have to sound like this, listen. >> i wouldn't buy any index right now. i would certainly not in the u.s. once the so-called stocks, facebook, amazon, netflix, google, crater, the market more downside risk than people perceive. >> that's marc faber who is very dismal on the markets. why am i talk ing like him? i don't know. ben, what he's saying is get ready, it is going to get nasty.
you agree? >> well, he doesn't know. and i don't know. >> he does. >> yes, he does. >> no, he doesn't know. nobody knows and that's the whole point and the whole point is to keep buying the index. year in and year out and nobody knows what the future of the market is in the short- or medium-term. >> he did say if he had his preference, he wouldn't start buying an index fund right now. >> i know he said that but he's wrong. >> it depends on, you're very, very funny. he said -- it depends on your time horizon. if you're buying it for your grandchildren, absolutely, today's a great day to buy. >> i didn't mention my grandchildren at all. charles payne, charles payne, we also, this is something i want to get back to ben. he wrote brilliantly on this. this idea that china is a catalyst for this selling. he reminded me that this chinese
factory report which showed a little weakness wasn't at all the catalyst, something bigger was. what do you think? >> i agree. that myth was a fraction. i think it was 49.8 versus 49.7. it was very small. they have their own initiatives over there. including a mismanagement of the markets. the communist rulers think they can control, but they can't. ultimately, weakness in china is a reflection of global economy. if exports go down, it's a red flag. i agree with ben, with respect to not knowing where the market is going to go near-term, but long-term, ultimately the market tends to gyrate higher. the only place i disagree with ben is i think the index funds are great if you have a lot of money and you want to preserve it whereas the average person out there who wants to maybe try to get wealthier would do better to try to find individual names that could outperform. >> ben, you wrote a very interesting point on this china obsession. that even allowing for this, this selloff yesterday, was way
overdone. why? explain. >> the u.s. gdp is approximately 18 trillion. our experts to china are very approximately 120 billion. even if they fell by 10% which would be a very big fall or even 20%. that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the u.s. gdp. there are, the traders move the market, neil, because they make money moving the market. they don't make money just watching it go steadily up. they make it by scaring people, selling them fear and buying on the fear on the way up. it's traders using an excuse. the traders are not your friends. and traders are just trying to make a buck for themselves. and they know nothing about the future of the economy. absolutely nothing. >> all right. well but, so you think that china is disproportionately a concern where it shouldn't be? >> the notion that -- >> the u.s. investor. >> for the u.s. investor. unless he or she is heavily
invested in chinese stocks. it's way disproportionate. >> are scary things in the u.s. economic portrait. mining stocks are in a bad, bad way. energy sector is in a bad way. but on the other hand some sectors are booming incredibly. so we just don't know. but china is a small factor. in u.s., total u.s. output. >> you know charles you and i were talking about this on fbn. the notion that china has been seen as the global ringleaders. the production and buying that goes on there. all the goods shipped there. if they're catching a cold, the world will get pneumonia. do you buy that? >> well you know, i tend to agree with ben. >> why do you keep agreeing with ben? >> i'm trying -- you think about nine for instance. when we get the nike number, we want to know what they're doing in china. same with apple. for me, china is the exports to the rest of the world somewhere
we should use them as a baromet barometer. in fact their experts are down. the u.s. is the best one out of the whole bunch. the atlantic fed said our fourth quarter gdp could 0.7%. december 15th, they thought it was going to be 2%. we're talking about a freefall here. so it's, i understand near-term people are worried and this is why i agree with ben. long-term, stay the course and you'll get rich like ben. >> thank you, charles, and ben, great insight. >> did you see this? it's happening, is it just now, pam? this plane sliding in the snowbank, everyone is all right. but it occurs at a time, i don't know if you heard the airlines, they're going to raise, they're going to raise prices. and here's what's weird about it. they're doing it after their energy prices have been cut in
you know, jet fuel is the biggest cost to airlines, by far. crude oil down 40% since last june that was the last time fares went up wlaxt do you think they're doing now? increasing fares. it doesn't add up, what's going on. >> take a look at this timeline. monday, 1:00 p.m., delta raised airfares, seven hours later, in came southwest. raising airfares, then this morning at 10:00 a.m. american and united, guess what, raising airfares. on and on it goes, we sought an explanation, we asked all the majors, why are you raising your fares? southwest got back to us saying that they implemented a modest increase of $3 each way in markets across our systems, they say we don't nickel and dime our customers with hidden fees. but guess what -- they never really answered our question,
neil. and then when american airlines got back to us, they didn't answer our question, either. we're waiting to see if jet blue, spirit and frontier, what they'll do. whether they'll raise their fees. so far, confounding is the only answer i have for you. >> a lot of us say we had to raise prices, what you see in the market isn't necessarily what we're paying or saving or whatever, fine, i can understand that. but to increase prices? i dare say you're hedging is not, produce higher prices in that time. >> i don't think so i don't think that's the way that works at all. consumers are thinking hey, i see the difference at the gas pump. why at i not seeing the difference in my airfare right now? lots of people, lots of questions. they're not telling us why. >> they're not sharing the info. >> jerry willis, thank you very
much. we're on top of the kind of stuff that maybe it comes up in the big debate next week. in charleston, south carolina, we're doing it again. fox business hosting a presidential debate. more than just economic numbers, your money, your life, we're there. hello, i'm eric bolling along with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino and greg gutfeld. it's 5:00 in new york city and this is "the five." today president obama unveiled the actions he plans to take without the consent of congress to restrict gun use in america. among them, expanding background checks to almost anyone buying a firearm from a dealer. he says his plans are constitutional. he also set some constraints on freedom are necessary to protect innocent people. and then he got emotional. >> our unalienable rights to the pursuitf