Sign in to comment!

Menu
Home

Recap of Saturday, February 13

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.

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on Fox | Cashin' In

Bulls & Bears

On Saturday, February 13, Brenda Buttner was joined by Gary B. Smith, Matt McCall, Pat Dorsey, Eric Bolling and Richard Goodstein.

Report: President Open to Middle-Class Tax Hikes; Economy Killer?

Eric Bolling, Fox Business Network: This is not only the worst thing for the economy, but we knew for a long time that President Obama was going to have to raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich, to pay for all the things he wants to do. So here it is. If small businesses and middle-class families end up getting hit with new taxes, it will absolutely torpedo the economy. Small businesses would be hit the worst, and obviously that would have a devastating economic impact.

Richard Goodstein, Fmr. Clinton/Gore Campaign Advisor: President Obama didn't say anything specifically about raising taxes on families that make less than $250,000. He said everything was on the table in terms of tax hikes and budget cuts. Is there anyone who doesn't agree that everything should be on the table to get deficits under control? The administration is yet to specifically say they're going to raise taxes on the middle class. In fact, the stimulus package gave the single biggest tax cut to middle class families in history.

Gary B. Smith, TheChartman.com: The Obama administration will couch this as a shared-pain kind of thing, and we need to raise taxes in order to close our huge deficits. But time after time, throughout history, lowering taxes is what brings an economy around. JFK, Bill Clinton, George Bush, all these guys cut taxes and brought great periods of wealth. There is literally not one solid historical example that when you raise taxes, you help the economy.

Matt McCall, Penn Financial Group: If you spend more than you have, you have to increase tax receipts or revenues in order to pay for it. Lower taxes frequently bring in greater tax receipts, and that's the sort of thing the administration should be looking at now if they want to stimulate the economy. But President Obama campaigned on not raises taxes on the middle class, but now everything is on the table. It's concerning.

Pat Dorsey, Morningstar.com: The stuff that really matters has never been on the table no matter what party, no matter what politician. Defense spending, unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare are three-quarters of the budget. Until you get into and start going after those programs, you're never going to move the needle on the deficit, no matter what kind of tax cuts or tax hikes you put in place.

Will New Jobs Bill Fast Track Social Security to Bankruptcy?

Gary B. Smith: This makes zero sense. It's going to bankrupt Social Security. It's going to net zero new jobs, and it's going to throw $13 billion dollars down the drain. The idiocy of this administration when it comes to business and economics is profound. A business doesn't just hire somebody because the government offers you a few thousand dollars to do it. You hire people when you think the economy is getting better, or your costs are lower. This is "cash for clunkers" on steroids.

Richard Goodstein: If there are zero new hires from this program, then it won't cost the government anything, because they wouldn't have to pay out the incentive. We can't forget that a year ago, our GDP was shrinking at 6 percent, now it's growing at 6 percent. So to say the government is helpless to help the economy is silly. It's opportunity in the economy that creates job growth. But this incentive from the government can make up that difference in margin between businesses deciding to hire a person or not. It's not a bad bet.

Matt McCall: If I'm sitting on the fence for a hire and need that $3,000 dollars to do it, I'm not running a very good business. That $3,000 credit is only going to come once. If I'm going to hire somebody, it's going to be because I really need them to fill a role in my business, and I have the money to employ them. It really is about how businesses view the economic market. This carrot from the government won't work. And the fact that government could be taking way money from Social Security to pay for this plan is one of the dumbest moves it can make.

Eric Bolling: I'm all for cutting budgetary spending. The original costs of the proposed jobs bill was $85 billion, then it dropped to $13 billion. Unfortunately, a major component of the $85 billion bill was $35 billion in tax cuts. And they cut that out! They left some of the things that sound good, but in the end this $13 billion isn't going to go very far, and Congress is going to realize they could have spent it on far better things.

Pat Dorsey: Unfortunately at this point in the economic cycle, politicians feel like they need to do something about jobs. In any downturn, jobs are the last thing to recover. Jobs recover long after the general market recovers. People see Wall Street doing well while Main Street is still in bad shape. It just takes time, for demand, confidence, consumer spending, etc. to come back. That's what's really going to generate jobs.

D.C. Snow Shutdown: What if Private Sector Did the Same?

Matt McCall: If the private sector took a snow week, there'd be ramifications across the economy. From retail sales, to tax receipts coming into the government, even employment. The private sector shows up and innovates, and that's the thing that drives this economy. But in some ways, it's almost better for the government to have snow day. I think it spends less when its workers sit around at home and it's not able to do anything.

Gary B. Smith: The government even screwed up the whole open/closed thing. If you had a 30 minute commute in D.C. normally, it'd be two and a half hours in the snow. Do we really suffer if the Department of Agriculture closes for a couple of days? Or the Energy Department? These guys should have stayed out for 6 months. Anybody who deals with the government knows it's an impediment to doing business efficiently. The private sector has to go out and make a living, and that's something the government doesn't really have to be concerned about.

Richard Goodstein: We should all be bowing to federal employees. When Wall Street was spinning out of control, it was federal employees who saved our economy from depression and kept it solvent. We all have money in our pockets now that we wouldn't have had without the good work government officials can actually provide.

Eric Bolling: We lost $500 million in lost government productivity. Think about this though, the jobs bill went from $85 billion down to $15 billion in the course of the snow shutdown. Maybe the government shutting down wasn't such a bad thing.

Predictions

Gary B. Smith: Forget Google's high speed network! "CMCSK" shoots up 20 percent by June

Matt McCall: "Cash for appliances" gives "WHR" a 30 percent boost in 1 year

Pat Dorsey: Bet on title insurance! "FNF" doubles in 2 years

Eric Bolling: Nothing politically incorrect about candy! "HSY" gets a 30 percent sugar high

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on Fox | Cashin' In

Cavuto on Business

On Saturday, February 13, Charles Payne was in for Neil Cavuto. Charles was joined by Dagen McDowell, Joe Battipaglia, Adam Lashinsky, and Ben Stein.

New Normal in America: High Unemployment?

Dagen McDowell, Fox Business Network: These new projections of high unemployment years down the line are our future. Over 2 million jobs won't come back. We need to create 100,000 jobs every month just to absorb new entrances into the workplace. If we put in programs like in Europe, then we will see continually high levels of unemployment. We need better clarity in terms of where our economy is headed down the line. A lot of businesses are uncertain as to what the future holds economically, and that affects who they hire.

Joe Battipaglia, Stifel Nicolaus: Our government leadership is dumbing down economic stewardship. We introduced for the first time the concept of saving a job, rather than creating one. We are accepting an above 7 percent unemployment rate for as far as the eye can see. We have the IMF saying that we should accept higher global interest rates. When we waste money, lose 8 million jobs, with money being dumped out of a chopper and near-zero percent interest rates, these are failed economic policies. And unfortunately, no one wants to stand up and turn it around.

Adam Lashinsky, Editor-at-Large, Fortune Magazine: The average American probably doesn't understand that full employment really is around 3 to 5 percent average unemployment. Of course, no one wants anybody to be out of work. But 7 percent may be the new norm. The reason for that is that we're not trying to emulate some European economy, it's that we had an incredibly overheated and inflated economy. We had way too much leverage and activity that was not economically prudent, and it will take awhile until the economy finds its new equilibrium.

Ben Stein, Author, "How to Ruin the U.S.A.": The basic problem in this country is that American wages are too high to compete on the world stage. If wages fell, then more people could be employed. If you're a kid in school, learn useful things like engineering, economics, Chinese, etc. There really is an oncoming problem of a lot of people wanting to get paid well, but they don't have any real desirable skills. If this issue isn't solved then we will continue to see perpetually high unemployment.

Unions Against Cost-Cutting Plans; Bad News for America?

Ben Stein: I'm not surprised by this at all. Unions have always talked about having artificially low wages, but a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in terms of pensions and benefits. This is what killed the auto industry. And many states and municipalities whose employees are heavily unionized are headed down the same path. We're looking at bankruptcy by many cities and states. It's up to workers to pitch in, and accept a lowering of their employment costs and benefits for the benefit of the areas they work.

Adam Lashinsky: I'm not in favor of union bashing for the sake of union bashing. The leaders of the unions have to do their jobs of representing and advocating for their members. If they have to cut back, so be it. You can't expect them to come out of the gate on this stuff and ask for their wages and benefits to be cut. From their perspective they have made concessions in regards to wages, and in return, they get better pension benefits.

Joe Battipaglia: The government should come at this with a two-tier approach. First, governments have to get firm and say new workers aren't going to get the same compensation and benefits as current or veteran employees. Those with existing plans are going to get scaled back over a period of years. This has to be done in order to preserve sustainability for various state and local governments to function.

Dagen McDowell: There are more union workers in the public sector than there are in the private sector. It's a vicious circle of raising taxes and expenditures to make government even bigger. It's all about making sure the money gets funneled into the unions in any way, shape or form. Unions will still have a lot of sway because they have their hands on the money. They absolutely have significant leverage in how wages and benefits could be adjusted to compensate for spiraling, out of control, government costs.

"School's Out" for Junk Food: Is This the Government's Role?

Joe Battipaglia: This is a state's rights issue, and not something the federal government should be involved with. Let states decide who they want or don't want to vend on their school properties. We've got to step away from this, let states operate their schools, and let parents and the PTA take more active roles in helping children stay healthy.

Dagen McDowell: Good health and good eating should begin at home. Parents need to worry about what sort of things they're feeding their children in the house, and establishing healthy habits there.

Ben Stein: This is not government overreaching at all. There's a reason they're called public schools--because they're public! It's an outrage that kids are pouring sugary garbage down their throats. We need to give kids a more apples, bananas, etc.Why don't we give them healthier choices?

Adam Lashinsky: The federal government has been involved with public schools since Abraham Lincoln. This is not a political issue; it's about making sure the next generation of children is healthy. The federal government absolutely has a responsibility here.

Stock Valentine's

Joe Battipaglia: Pepsico (PEP)

Adam Lashinksy: Deutsche Bank Oil Powershares (DBO)

Ben Stein: Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B)

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on Fox | Cashin' In

Forbes on Fox

On Saturday, February 13, 2010, David Asman was joined by Bill Baldwin, Neil Weinberg, Mike Ozanian, Quentin Hardy, Victoria Barret, Elizabeth MacDonald, Evelyn Rusli, and John Rutledge.

In Focus: Could Out-of-Control Spending in Washington Lead to Chinese Takeover of America?

David Asman: Is out of control spending and borrowing in Washington leading to a Chinese takeover of America? This week, China threatened to use America's debt as a weapon against us. We've spent $3.5 trillion since President Obama took office, and we owe the Chinese almost $800 billion. Is this reason enough for Washington to stop spending now? Hi everybody, I'm David Asman. Welcome to Forbes on Fox! Let's go In Focus with Bill Baldwin, Elizabeth MacDonald, and Neil Weinberg, along with Mike Ozanian, Quentin Hardy, and John Rutledge. Dr. John, you fear a Chinese takeover of America?

John Rutledge: Of course there's a risk of being taken over, at least economically. Countries that spend too much money get taken over by countries that don't because the stock market falls, income falls, inflation goes up, the currency goes down, and the power shifts into other hands. And by the way, it's $2 trillion of our securities they have. They're very worried about U.S. inflation and about the currency; that's why they're taking moves on their portfolio.

Elizabeth MacDonald: No, there's a very important reason why not. If China dumps all of its holdings en masse, they won't get the yields they would get in the market. They would be shooting both of their feet off. The issue with China is a domestic problem because China has been robbing our jobs by cheapening its currency so our good are artificially inflated there while their goods are deflated here. And they slap our goods with tariffs. That's why the car companies have to set up shop there. Buicks have a 40 percent tax on them from China. That's a real problem. I don't see China making moves to dump its portfolio now though, because that would hurt them.

Bill Baldwin: I think we should be concerned. Here's the problem. You have a once great civilization decaying into populous consumerism in which self-indulgent voters vote themselves great programs and don't want to pay for them. It happened in Greece and it's happening to the U.S. If you contrast that to Asia, which is full of industrious, hard-working, frugal people, obviously this is going to be China's century.

Mike Ozanian: I heard a lot of this same thing during the 80s. We were going to be owned by Japan. And let's not forget we borrowed a fortune from France to fight the Revolutionary War. But Bill does make a very good point. It depends on how you use the money you borrow. Unfortunately we are squandering the money we are borrowing from China. We're not using it to increase productive assets; we're plowing it into government jobs.

Neil Weinberg: I think that over the long term, this is a real concern. When you borrow and borrow and borrow, either as a homeowner or as a country, you can either go bankrupt or in the case of a government, you have to increase taxes or reduce spending. In any of these cases, America will ultimately be poorer than it is now. China will become increasingly powerful in the world, and they will start dictating the terms whether you're talking about foreign policy, economic policy, or anything else.

Quentin Hardy: I think there are two things going on here. One, just how fat and stupid are we? And here, the news is not so good, because our people are really getting bad messages. Did you see Sarah Palin at the Tea Party convention last week? I don't mind that she wrote on her hand, but what she wrote down bugged me. She wrote, "budget cuts," then cut out the word "budget," and wrote "tax." So once again, you can have it all and never pay for it. That's crazy. But then, on Friday, Harry Reid said he'd cut $70 billion from the jobs bill, so maybe America can learn. I hope so. Which brings me to my second point. Who would you rather be in this movie? Us, who have a few problems, or China—demographic nightmare, financial house of cards, water problem bringing them to their knees, totalitarian state?

Flipside: Republicans in Congress Are Costing Taxpayers More than Democrats!

David Asman: As you know by now, Forbes on Fox is green, as in money, which is why when Congress does something crazy with your money, we're on it, regardless of party. A new report shows several Republicans who voted against the $787 billion stimulus bill ended up padding their own states with the very same stimulus dollars that they railed against. Elizabeth says that kind of hypocrisy is exactly why Republicans could end up costing taxpayers even more than the Democrats.

Elizabeth MacDonald: Absolutely. It's so unseemly that the Republicans are mobbing the back of the free government cheese truck, because we need their adult supervision in Washington. We don't need, at this point in time, the fiscal hawks in this country flying the coup. We need them to keep a check on the out of control spending. It's really bad for the country.

Victoria Barret: I agree that both parties should get a D+ when it comes to integrity. But there's a big difference here when you talk about actual numbers, and the deficits we are looking at are record high. And what's most telling is, we're looking at these record high deficit projections while we are going to see increases in taxes. That shows government spending at really unprecedented levels. That's the difference here. Republicans need to step up, but Democrats are going to cost us more.

Quentin Hardy: Of course there is hypocrisy in this party. Ronald Reagan talks about fiscal austerity and gives us a deficit. Clinton gives you a surplus. Bush has wars he doesn't even put on his books. The Democrats might spend, but at least they are honest about it.

Mike Ozanian: The Democrats are more to blame. Their budget is $4 trillion versus the Republican's $2.5 trillion. But there's more harm on top of the additional spending being put forth by the Democrats. As Vickie alluded to, the tax increases are anti-growth. Quentin's favorite president Bill Clinton had a huge capital gains tax cut that helped. That was on top of Gingrech and the Republicans reigning in spending. Reagan's budget deficit was much much smaller than Obama's as a portion to the overall economy, and he was winning the Cold War.

John Rutledge: So far to date, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke have done more to destroy wealth in America than any Democrat, but Obama is hell-bent to replace them in the record book with this new budget. Obamacare and cap-and-trade would clearly wipe out all previous attempts. Yesterday's jobs bill was another attempt to put more of this lard back into the economy. It's about half earmarks. Thank God for Harry Reid for throwing that stuff out.

Neil Weinberg: You know, saying who's at fault here is like taking two married people, pairing them each with a different person, sending them to hotel rooms to do unnatural things, and saying one is more at fault than the other. They're both at fault here. That's the problem. At least we know what the Democrats are about. They're about all this spending. The Republicans claim that they're not. You have guys like Joe Wilson, a Republican representative who tells Obama "you lie" and then goes and takes stimulus money. That's unnatural.

Flipside: Men Should Be Given Special Incentives to Attend College

David Asman: The number of women attending college is overtaking men in a big way. A new report shows nearly 60 percent of college students are women, and that number is expected to keep growing. Neil, you say it's time for affirmative action for men?

Neil Weinberg: David, as your mom used to tell you, two wrongs make a right. It's wrong that there aren't more men in college and the only way to make it right is affirmative action. It's just a waste of our resources if men aren't going to college and using their minds.

Victoria Barret: Neil is cheating. He's saying these men are not capable or ready to go to college, often they didn't graduate (the high school dropout rate for boys is nearly twice that of girls), but let's give them a free card to college. That doesn't address the problem. We're losing these boys in elementary, middle, and high school. We need to target that, not give them a free card to college.

Bill Baldwin: There is a whole industry of book publishers and consultants trying to tell us that boys are in trouble and they need pampering. I say no. Take away affirmative action. Don't pamper them. If they're getting bored in class, flunk them out. And I think we should get rid of college sports too, which is just another thing that attracts men. College should be about acquiring analytical skills. Football is not that. That's why women are succeeding.

Evelyn Rusli: I can't go as far as Bill. Looking at a ratio of 60 to 40, this is not a crisis situation. Men don't need incentives to go to college. I think the most qualified should get in. If you need incentives to go to college, and to see the value of education, you don't deserve to be there in the first place.

Informer: Stimulus Stocks!

David Asman: One year later—still not stimulated? Our Informers have their stock picks that'll help you more than any big government spending binge:

Mike Ozanian: FMI Focus (FMIOX)

Bill Baldwin: Starbucks (SBUX)

Neil Weinberg: Globe Specialty Metals (GSM)

Evelyn Rusli: Scout International (UMBWX)

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on Fox | Cashin' In

Cashin' In

New Push for $800 Billion "Jobs" Plan

Christian Dorsey, Director at Economic Policy Institute: We're in a huge jobs hole. We have 11 million jobs to fill just to get to the pre recession level. This is a big deal. And the first Recovery Act bill certainly had a lot of good things in it but it wasn't all targeted, 800 billion, towards jobs creating measures. So what we need now, in light of how bad this problem is, is to really get at the heart of the problem and come up with ideas that actually create jobs. And what we're talking about is the ability to create direct public service jobs, the ability to give state and local governments the aid they need so they don't lay off people, the idea that you invest in infrastructure generates jobs and then you come up with a tax credit that rewards employers to add jobs to the economy. This is urgently needed and it's needed now.

Tracy Byrnes, Fox Business Network: Of course we don't need this! The first one was a colossal disaster. Christian, not a penny are you offering to the private sector. How can this economy get back on its feet if we don't allow private sector, true capitalism, to come back. We are propping up government jobs yet again, via your bill. This is not going to work. It didn't work the first time, it won't work the second time and only now, we're going to be another $800 billion in the hole.

Jonathan Hoenig, CapitalistPig.com: Government always accuses small business of being short sided, spur of the moment. But what type of a well run business is going to hire someone because they're getting a tiny, one time only tax credit? Why are they going to make that investment to hire and train and invest in somebody for the long term especially is their small income taxes are going to go up anyway.

John Layfield, nutritionmarket.com CEO/owner: No, absolutely don't need it. The place where Christian and I disagree on is the ideology about government intervention where most of American disagree with the current administration that the liberal mindset is the fact of government intervention. People do not want this. Jimmy Carter tried this tax credit…it worked for a short time. We spent $800 billion in the last year. Department of Labor Statistics show that 6 million jobs lost. What Christian has here is a short term fix for tax breaks. You want jobs? Take off the Government Environmental regulations for offshore drilling, nuclear and solar and you'll create millions of jobs for private enterprise.

Jonas Max Ferris, MaxFunds.com: If you ask five people who have jobs if they want their taxes to go to pay for the unemployed, they're going to say we don't need it. If you ask 5 unemployed people, they're going to say we need it. So let's put in perspective what we're asking for here. Let's also put the amount of money in perspective here: I think it's 400 billion for 2 years. That's just Wal-Mart's revenue in a year. If you want the government to lower the unemployment rate by 2 percent let's say, it would take this sort of money to do it because the size of the US economy. If you don't think it's the governments jobs is to take the unemployment rate from under to to 7 or 8, which is what they want to do before the next election, this is all a waste of time. That's what they're trying to do and that's how much money its going to cost, like it or not.

Wayne Rogers, Wayne Rogers & Co.: The thing that I don't understand is that in all these government programs, who is to determine where this money goes. Let's say Christian is right and we don't spend this 400 billion, who is to determine that? How is it allocated? How is it accounted for after the fact? It never works. Nobody knows. In fact, just the opposite is happening in many cases. Right here in Utah, they laid off 500 people from the school system because they don't have enough money to pay for it. You're losing jobs by taking taxes away from people, shortening the budget and you're losing jobs instead of creating them. Otherwise, you're just taking money, running it through the federal government, a lot of it is drained off in administrative costs, and then giving it back to the people. You're just shuffling money…it's terrible. The government should be out of this business.

New Government Global Warming Agency: New Way to Hike Taxes?

John Layfield: This isn't just a backdoor way to raise taxes…it's a backdoor way to appoint a czar or agency without going through the vetting process to a cabinet level position. These guys are putting czars in place randomly not because they want to but its in their control. They're going to raise taxes for carbon capture, on oil companies. This cap n' trade, by every environmental scientist, is an absolute disaster and does nothing for the environment. What they're going to do is go around the Clean Air Act and they're going to put taxes on businesses. This is a business killer.

Christian Dorsey: Weather and climate are two different things and the thing about needed Climate Change in legislation is to deal with things beyond the short term effects of a blizzard on the East Coast. There is nothing back door sneaky about this. The Obama administration is responding to the critics who question whether or not climate change is real and they're going OK, let's give this government agency status so we can look at this. And this can help business a lot because folks are afraid to get involved with climate change industries because they don't think there's a market for it. Well the government is actually going to go out there and perform the research and make the market available so that private industry, which you all love, will carry the ball.

Jonathan Hoenig: It would be good to study the problem but I get a little suspicious when the President's own appointees from Day One say climate change is a problem and is real. The President wants to study it but already believes the verdict is in. The president and the environmentalists goal is to hurt industry. We need to use the earth if we want to be productive. But they're against any use of the earth when it comes to industry by oil.

Tracy Byrnes: Let's face it, middle class taxes are going up. Cap-and-trade is going to cost the average American family about $1,700 a year on top of the fact that federal taxes are going up and probably state taxes too. So you're going to be handing back about 60 percent back to the government. I look out my window and don't see global climate anywhere… it's just getting worse and worse by the minute. This is a backdoor way of taxing us just to get this agenda through. Greenies are not dead and they're not going anywhere and they're going to figure out how to get this through.

Wayne Rogers: How do you jump from creating an agency that's going to do this to taxes. I don't get it. You're already assuming this will be politicized. It isn't necessarily going to be politicized. There are about 650 scientists on the other side of the equation who say global warming from human problems is not true. A processor from Princeton has testified before Congress and said this is all crazy talk…consensus is not science. Because the vice president said so doesn't make it so.

Jonas Max Ferris: There are only three ways to cut down the globe's consumption of fuel. One is taxes, one is rules which are very easy to get around, the other is just run out of energy which is going to eventually happen anyway. They're going to have to do taxes because regulations are too easy to get around. Hopefully they'll offset it with payroll taxes so it doesn't hurt jobs as much.

Is President Obama Having a Change of Heart About Wealth and Success?

Jonathan Hoenig: Bloomberg had a poll that said 77 percent of investors believe the president is unfriendly to business. I appreciate his sentiments but his philosophy and certainly his legislation and political position don't support free market at all. If he supports free market, why is he an advocate for card check, say on pay, regulation CEO pay, making investments on private businesses, opposing school vouchers, equal pay. I mean the list goes on and on. He can say whatever he wants but his political posture is anti-business.

Christian Dorsey: My criticism about the President is that he's always been too business friendly. I don't begrudge anyone's wealth that comes from success but I do begrudge anyone's wealth that comes from failure. Obama was right for wanting to reign in a compensation for folks who have failed their companies, the economy and relied us as taxpayers to bail them out. So what I see the President doing right now is just making nice with the rhetoric which has been pretty sharp against the Wall Street community. Now he's trying to make nice but let's face it…his policies, his administration has been geared to helping out the business and financial sectors before Main Street.

Tracy Byrnes: This is all PR to get guys like JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon back on his side because he keeps taxing his company left and right. How is this guy supposed to make money for his shareholders, which is his job.

Wayne Rogers: I don't think it has to do with any of those things. I think Obama is changing his tune because he needs the money and the backing of these guys as opposed to scaring them away. That's who financed him before.

John Layfield: We are rewarding failure… like crazy. The FDIC let all these banks fail… they did not regulate anything. They had the regulations in place and they're still there. Congress – who allowed this whole sub-prime mess – is still in place. We're rewarding failure by letting these morons stay in office.

Jonas Max Ferris: I think there was always a fine line with pleasing the populous without seeming too socialist. This is a vague zone that he's been in for a long time.

What Do I Need to Know?

Wayne Rogers: This thing that has happened to the Greek economy this past week is a warning shot…that blow up could occur here. We're spending too much money. State and local governments are going broke. Politicians do not have the courage to deal with it. They're passing it over to the next generation. Look out America.

Tracy Byrnes: Airlines in the news again. We have a stowaway dead on a Delta flight and now American Airlines charging eight bucks for a blanket. How about we take the $8 and pay competent people to patrol our planes.

Jonas Max Ferris: Phillip Morris' great earnings prove that even in the face of global taxes of epic proportions on sin stuff prove that you can still make money and I'm still going to buy my favorite tequila with a 5 dollar tax. Brown Forman (BFB) is my stock of choice at the moment.

Jonathan Hoenig: Ritz Carlton in Vegas is closing. 400 people will be left without a job. They're blaming the AIG effect… downturn in corporate travel. If you think that luxury rebounds, check out (ROB). It's an ETF that handles all the luxury names like Louis Vuitton and Coach.

John Layfield: It took 26 years and a heck of a Super Bowl to beat our friend Wayne Rogers on "MASH." Wayne, congratulations! We're proud to have you on "Cashin In'."