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.
Disappointing Jobs Report Fueling New Debate Over Need for Tax Cuts
Gary B. Smith: Research comes out every day, the most latest from the National Bureau of economic research said that there is a positive correlation between tax cuts and job growth. But, even if we look back at real life examples, every major economic expansion we've had for the last 50 years, has been spurred by tax cuts. Kennedy in the '60s, Reagan in the '80s, Clinton in the '90s, that economy took off when he lowered the capital gains tax, each of those saw robust growth in jobs. I think the evidence is very clear, I don't know why you wouldn't cut taxes.
Emily Tisch Sussman: First of all, I think we should put the jobs numbers that came out today in perspective. Yes, they may be lower than many had hoped, but we are still in our 69th straight month of private sector job growth. So, I think there should be a little bit of perspective on that. But as to the GOP plans moving forward, they are definitely catching on to something of this populist messaging, the populist sense in America today. So they're throwing a little bit of a bone towards, almost symbolic really, in tax cuts towards the middle class. But when we look at their job proposals as their tax proposals as a whole, what their primarily doing is to continue to benefit those at the top hoping it does trickle down, I just don't know if regular Americans are going to buy it. They want to see solid programs that help them.
John Layfield: There is a trickle down and I agree with Gary B. in principal. Look, the bigger numbers here are six and a half years of a deficit that has almost doubled. Now we've tried it both ways, guys. So we cut taxes under President Bush, the deficit almost doubled. We raised taxes under President Obama, the deficit is almost going to double. President Obama's budget increases the deficit eight trillion dollars over the next 10 years. All of these republicans, none of them are balancing the budget. They're all roughly the same. No one has any fiscal responsibility. It's not about cutting taxes, it's not about raising taxes, we've go to balance the budget, we need major reform to major issues and the fact that we haven't had a president who can get along with congress over the last 20 years, is the biggest problem in our country.
Susie Welch: There are a lot of different problems and tax cuts are one way, and in the past couple of years there's just been a apology gigantic and there's 21federal agencies and 15 federal departments that watch the free market. Some of that has to come apart and come down so that we can get them going again and have the job growth. We're looking at a long term picture and 50 percent of the people under employed or employed.
Jonas Max Ferris: There are no plans to cover the cost of the radical tax cuts. They want to sound great. The best that we can get from the point is that no one can get anything and that could have the benefits of the job market. That's feasible. Whatever it is, that's going to make it a goal that we're going work for. Across the board to every bracket is not going happen. We're learning the deficit.
Hurricane Joaquin May Not Be a Direct Hit, But That Doesn't Mean It's Not Going to Create a Big Mess
Susie Welch: This reminds me of a well to do relative that lives out t at that cannot see like a rich aunt that pays for you to go to college, but she cannot see what you're doing evidence. You could be partying or studying. That's the analogy of the federal government for paying. Who is happy that they exist? I have no idea how the money is spent, and neither do you. Nobody knows, but the money is out the door and there's no accountability to prevent it later. People want FEMA to go away completely. We need a federal emergency disaster, but one that has over site.
Jonas Max Ferris: Well, let me tell you because I cannot make it to the studio because of the floods on the street. The city has taken money and puts hundreds of thousands of dollars into pumps and raises roads so that you can live there when the water comes up from the moon or floods or hurricanes. That makes people want to live there. There's a way to do this and that's the best example in the country. I will say that sandy has improved things. It's better than it was before. The government does not subsidize. If sandy happened, it would be as costly than the last time.
John Layfield: I do agree with the private insurance and building them and rates and you see that in the areas with the hurricanes. It makes a big difference. There are certain thing that is the government needs to step in on. Look at sandy. There were the Alaska fish. You wonder where the money goes, Susie is right that no one knows. We're a reactive government. Not a proactive government. We can save so much more money through prevention. It's like the drought when it rains, it's over with. Nothing is done to fix it. We have to be proactive in the United States.
Gary B. Smith: No, I don't. Susie mentioned that she thought that FEMA should exist, and I am one of the people that thinks that it should not. It's a waste. 29 States fund it for the other 21. If you choose and I live on a canal here, I pay through the nose for flood insurance and extra flood insurance. I am not putting that on the government. Like Jonas living in Miami you're in an area that's prone to hurricanes, floods and tornados. That's your choice. The state is responsible and the individual. Not the federal government. The federal government cannot manage anything. To have the blanket out there the governors when too FEMA was enacted learned to gain the system immediately. That's why the money is so wasteful.
Emily Tisch Sussman: Look all of the things that we're calling for and more prevention in place and moreover site, these are the things that you just do not get when you continuously cut and cut way at the government. It's great to have more, but don't you have to fund that? Prevention is great. Those are things that you have to put in place. The biggest problem when you get into flood and tornado and hurricanes ask that many in the party are so reactive to the idea of weather and the climate change, that they write it in to bills.
First Our Treasury Secretary Says We'll Run Out of Money in One Month, Then President Obama Says Raise Our Debt Limit or We'll Pay a Big Price
John Layfield: No, that's a revision to say that. He was the one that said that raising the debt ceiling was a failure of leadership and that America deserves better. I agreed with him then and I do now. It's a failure of leadership as it was then, and America deserves better. We have to raise the debt ceiling. It's silly not to do that. You have to tie it in a balance budget that's going to happen five or ten years from now. Until you do that, all you're going to do is ray it every few years and it's a failure of leadership. America deserves better.
Emily Tisch Sussman: We have to be serious about this. We cannot put America at risk every time. This is something that they have to take seriously. These debt are in cured. We don't want to mess with something like this.
Gary B. Smith: When I hear people say that we're putting the full faith in whatever of the United States, I want to tear my hair out. First of all we would have enough money if we pass the debt limit to pass it, social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Second of all in 85 we went three and a half months after the debt ceiling was hit before we raised it 95 four and a half months. This has been done before. This is the only way to write the ship. The president would have to prioritize the bills that he is going pay. That's his responsibility.
Susie Welch: We can talk about this from an economic standpoint, but this is the politics. This is them trying to get them to shut down the government. It's about optics and how they look at the shut down and there they are shutting down the government again. This is just a political power play, and we can talk about it and deal with it when there publicans have it gain and then deal it with it in a way. Until then, it's just politics.
Jonas Max Ferris: It's because of too much debt. Let's not forget that. I would say that they should not have any debt ceiling. It's one thing to make it go up. They're fighting over something that's not making an impact on it anyway. That's ridiculous.
Gary B. Smith: COP 30 percent gain by 2016
John Layfield: CVS 20 percent profit in a year
Jonas Max Ferris: Swedish I shares ETF up 50 percent in a year