• With: Tom Belesis, Charles Payne, Gerri Willis, Adam Lashinksy

    DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

     

    GOP PLAN FOR $61B IN CUTS CALLED 'RADICAL,' 'EXTREME'

    Charles Payne: 1.5 trillion, that's a radical number and 14 trillion, that's a radical number, too, how about 45 million people on food stamps, that's pretty radical. What would be radical, is the politicians standing up and having the guts to say, we've got to drill this back in. Not attacking wealth creators while the masses go begging. That's what's radical and I don't understand why everyone doesn't see that at this point.

    Gerri Willis: I say that the government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends and i say that's radical and crazy and the country has a spending problem, not a taxation problem. 44 percent of all of our revenues are actually going to these entitlement programs. By 2035 all of our revenues will be sucked up by the entitlement programs and debt payments.

    Tom Belesis: I agree with Gerri. Talk about extreme, this is pure hypocrisy on the other side. Last week the President said tone down the rhetoric, yet, they're creating multi-trillion dollar deficits, they just added 200,000 federal jobs and during a recession. It's hilarious.

    Adam Lashinsky: I got confused for a moment there, Tom, as to who the other side was. I thought we were all on the same side here, so, the question is, is 60 billion dollars a big number? And I think your point is that it's not a big number and I would agree with that. So, where the Democrats and the Republicans are apart, is somewhere between 30 billion dollars, 60 billion dollars, and that's what they're fighting about. That's where the New York Times said that the republicans are being rigid because they're insisting on starting down the government over this, over this difference. If the point is, should we be paying attention to the Trillion dollars, to the entitlement program problems I would say yes, absolutely. If the debate is over tens of billions we should get on and get the budget passed and get to the next important conversation.

    OUTRAGE GROWING OVER U.S. PAYING $55M A DAY IN LIBYA

    Gerri Willis: We're not required to pay a dime, the Arab League said, let have a no fly zone and we're in favor that but we're not give you money for it. In the meantime they're going to make a trillion dollars this year from oil profits because oil has gone over $100 a barrel and that's not good news. Those 22 nations in the Arab League are benefiting from the work we're doing there and our allies think we're going to bring peace to the region and more stability and we're footing the bill.

    Charles Payne: We should charge them, but also, Italy, Greece, and France. Let's be honest they needed this more than anybody needed this and I don't know if we're returning a favor or what exactly is going on. By the way, this is looking already like the Bay of Pigs, 2011 version and so, the $55 million we've currently spent is going to go a lot higher because we're going to have to put in more tomahawks to try to turn this thing around. The rebels have no clue what they're doing and no leadership. This is interesting, a war that's not a war and the fact that we're once again footing the bill, and despite the President's address; we're still not sure why we're over there.

    Tom Belesis: We have to face reality. This is old news; the aspect of the U.S. always carries a disproportionate burden of costs. This is not the way to fight a war. If you're going to take a dictator out of power, you fight to win and accomplish your goal. We should pressure the other countries to pay the bill, but that's not going to happen.

    Adam Lashinsky: Well, I think it's a little bit naive to ask the question why do we have to pay for it. Tom already explained it. We have to pay it because we're the United States. And maybe one day we won't have that role in the world. We step up for two reasons; we step up for humanitarian reasons and do it for self-interest. We do everything that we do in self-interest and there's nothing wrong with that. The fact is the world's leading super power pays, I don't like it, you don't like it, we don't have to like it, if we want to do it then we pay for it.

    STOCKS ROCKETING HIGHER IN Q1 DESPITE OF GLOBAL TURMOIL

    Charles Payne: Well, you know, in some ways this market is up by default. You know, if you're going to invest in the hottest economies in the world, Chinese, Europe, and Japan. We win by default and used to be the dollar won by default and no one believes in that. And defacto on the global economy, that helps. The federal reserve manipulating a market higher, let's be honest about it, that's helped tremendously and why the street is so great and what happens in June. Also I go back to November, the elections, if you look at history when the GOP has swept the House and/or Senate and the White House to the degree that they did, it's only happened a few times, 1994 we had an incredible run in the market and 1950, anybody remember the 50's that was the golden era in America, 1920 and 1893, every one of those times we enjoyed a multi-year rally in the market, in an incredible economy and that could be happening again.

    Tom Belesis: I think the market goes higher. You have the cycle, number one, number two, you have the Fed popping so much money into the system and doing everything it can in its power to keep the recovery going and now you also have to look at emerging economies around the world like Charles said, India, China, huge developing middle classes and that's why 50 percent of all the S&P profits have some form of release.

    Gerri Willis: I'm sorry, I don't agree. I'm not on the bull rally we have rolling here. Look we have a big bill coming due and the federal government pumped a ton of money into our economy and lots of liquidity and at the end of the day we'll have inflation and that's not good for stocks. Look back to 1974, inflation was up 12 percent and we can't imagine that now. Inflation kills stocks and stocks were down 27 percent that year and other things were going on, but the reality is inflation could be a big hurt on the stock market and for the economy.

    Adam Lashinsky: Well, we have a lousy news back drop that doesn't have as much to do with capital markets as it does with scary things going on in the world and for example, what's going on in Libya or even in Japan does not do anything to a demand that may be inflationary demands, but in China, India and Brazil some factors that are driving the global economy and recovery in the United States. As we saw last week with the improved jobs figures. Is it hunky dory, no, but is it improved, yes. I think that an account for the up performance, plus it's relevant as Charles stayed. We were down and now we're up.

    STRONG STOCKS... STAYING STRONGER

    Charles Payne: Genesee & Wyoming (GWR)

    Adam Lashinsky: Leucadia National (LUK)

    Tom Belesis: Cliffs Natural (CLF)