• With: Gary B. Smith, Caroline Heldman, Eric Bolling, Jonas Max Ferris, Tom Belesis



    New Calls to Cut All U.S. Aid to All Foreign Countries

    Gary B. Smith: I think it's time to keep the money here, Brenda, we saw what happened or what we got for it in Egypt, very little. We kept basically a dictator, if you will, in power for many years because we thought he was friendly to us, but we waste money all over the place, we've never helped poverty in Africa, in places like El Salvador. You know the critics will say, well, it's just a small portion of our budget, but you know what, we can give every person in poverty in the U.S., $1500 a year for an eternity with the money that we give to other countries.

    Caroline Heldman: I think another argument, and by the way, that's about 1 percent of the budget, but another strong argument is that it's an important diplomatic tool. Obviously, sometimes it's used for corruption and to uphold dictators and all of that is problematic, but we don't just want boots and guns on the ground. We do spend it on fighting Aids, Malaria and poverty and it's important for diplomacy.

    Eric Bolling: I'm going to say something here that probably is going to upset a lot of people on the right. I don't think that money was poorly spent. I think that 60 billion dollars in Egypt, for example, over the last 30 years, can enable us to have an ally in the Middle East, however, that number, 60 billion dollars, about the interest on the stimulus program, the 862 billion dollars could have had strings attached to it, should have had strings attached much like the aid we put out in the stimulus, should have had strings when we loaned it to companies and banks, it's not just 60 billion dollars, it's here, you have money for whatever you want to use it for and they did.

    Jonas Max Ferris: Yeah, I think people get mad about it, because he think they think about it like it's aid, like we really do that, we go around helping people for the sake of helping people, we don't have poor people in this country to help. I think it's part of the defense budget, really like our public relations campaigns, and it's also a bribe and we haven't had a lot of trouble out of Egypt for quite awhile. And maybe be bribe them not to attack other countries there and we give other countries their money and military help so they can fight our enemies for us and what it would cost for us to do those things is probably a pretty good return on investment and it doesn't always work out, but I think that ultimately that country was paid off for a long time to the benefit of American taxpayers in the long run.

    Tom Belesis: Foreign aid is a great thing. It depends on the people that we're giving it, are they our friends, will it help them? I mean, giving 70 billion dollars to a dictator and having him pocket most of the money is not fair. Look at the people, you have doctors in Egypt that are driving taxis, there's no work, why? Because most of that money went to Mubarak not to the people.

    CBO Director: Health Care Law Will Likely Cost 800,000 Jobs

    Tom Belesis: I mean, everyone out there knows that this Obamacare, it's not the right thing for the country, especially in a time where we're having difficulties creating jobs, I mean, it's not a job creator, it's a job destroyer. Now we're looking at cutting another 800,000 people out of work, over the next 10 years, with this new Obamacare. I think that they have to scrap it immediately because it's going to cost more money for employees to work. And you know what, it's not going to incentivize employers to have the money on the books and put it back in the economy and that's not a good thing.

    Carolne Heldman: To be clear 800,000 jobs is not job loss, it's the number of people who opt out of working because they don't have to for health care -- 800,000 jobs will be open to additional people according to UCLA and Harvard economists.

    Gary B. Smith: Well, I would admit Caroline, I'm one of those laughing, that is as Eric jumped in and said, a heck of way to spin it. 800,000 people have zero incentive because basically they're on the government dole for health care, so they pick up and don't have to work. And by your definition, then we should increase unemployment benefits for eternity, then people wouldn't have to work either because they would get these benefits for free. The fact is, the 800,000 jobs are lost and in addition it's one big tax on people that can pay, employers, people that already have health care and their rates are going to go up, increased taxes always lead to decreased jobs so even if you somehow scrub that 800,000 away, we're still going to lose jobs. This bill is a loser. Nobody wants it, it's been proven that it can't be paid for. It should be dead right now.

    Jonas Max Ferris: First off, it's not a loser if someone doesn't have health care and somehow they're going to get a cheaper plan, I would probably call that a winner especially if they have job but doesn't have health care. Now, look, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. It's a Frankenstein plan, it's a mish-mosh to offer this, and it's going to lead to less hiring, but more people have health care and there's gives and takes there. I will say though the plans to repeal it are going to make the problem worse because they're not going to fully repeal it, they're going to do the proposal and not hire the IRS agents to enforce the mandates and that's less people working if you do that; and the mandate makes you get health insurance, that's more people working because you have to have health care provided for the people and that's going to raise the cost of the employees more and pay for the uninsured people like they're doing now and the plans are not going to fix the problem.

    Eric Bolling: I want to point out you say 16,000 IRS workers, those are government workers and that's money we were going to have to spend anyway, so I'm all for those jobs being eliminated. You're creating a government job, who cares? That doesn't help the economy at all. That hurts us. As taxpayers, that hurts us.

    Fears Grow Bailed-Out Fannie, Freddie Won't Pay Back Taxpayers

    Eric Bolling: We will never get paid the $150 billion back, probably mortgage rates will also increase, they'll be covered by homes and maybe come to the housing market, but the good news, the silver lining is that we'll stop spending, 20, 30, billion a year, giving Fannie, Freddie, leeway to cut the market and basically divert all market activities, this is a good thing.

    Caroline Heldman: I would agree with everything that Eric said, it has bipartisan support and it finally gets the government out of the business of mortgage-backed securities, where ultimately, that's what it will do and yeah, I agree with Eric, and we won't see that money again.

    Gary B. Smith: It's going to be free of a kind. I can't we're all in agreement so far, but I see an even bigger silver lining and one, yes, I agree with Eric, we're not going to see the money, but to Caroline's point, I think the bigger issue is we take one step away from the government even being in the housing business. We shouldn't be supporting or denying housing to anyone and he we shouldn't be in that. We don't support apartment hunting, for crying out loud and we shouldn't be in the housing business. This gets us a little bit out. So, like FHA and all of that other jazz, but this is good.

    Tom Belesis: I agree with everyone. I think that the government should get the hell out of the mortgage business, but at the end of the day we've got to look at options and see what it's going to do to the housing market because we don't want to put any more pressure on the housing market than it's already got and we want to help the housing market, but it's a good thing to get the government out of the way.

    Jonas Max Ferris: The only alternative. We've put pulled the rug out of the market and the government is ensuring trillions of dollars in mortgage and will cost us way more and I will not agree with anybody, I don't think it's taxpayers a dime, believe it or not, because we've saved hundreds of billions in interest payments over the years by them existing and I'm paying 3.75 percent on a mortgage, a rate that Johnson & Johnson borrows money at. Why would somebody give someone like me money at 3.75? That's because of Fannie and Freddie and I'm saving thousands of interest and paying taxes to bail them out. It's a circle and I don't think it costs as much as you think, when you look at how much you save, I'm not for them and not for mansions with subsidies, I don't think I should have got a handout.


    Jonas Max Ferris: "AVAV"

    Gary B. Smith: "EZA"

    Tom Belesis: "JOYG"

    Eric Bolling: "MPEL"