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

Bulls & Bears

On Saturday December 12, Brenda Buttner was joined by Gary B. Smith, Tobin Smith, Pat Dorsey, Eric Bolling and Sarah Flowers.

President Obama: Spend More to Get Out of Recession: Right or Wrong?

Eric Bolling, Fox Business Network: Stop the spending! It's not working. This small business tax credit won't work when a company has to pay out a salary and provide health care. That tax credit doesn't provide enough hiring incentive. Also, no one knows what health care reform or cap and trade is going to cost in terms of higher taxes. But it could cause millions to lose their jobs over time. Not to mention, consumer spending is still down, people are saving much more. None of this will work.

Sarah Flowers, Democratic strategist: I do think this spending will work, because it focuses on buildings jobs for small businesses. The U.S. economy has to add 100,000 new jobs a month to keep track with population growth. We have to add 300,000 a month to manage growing deficit levels. We have to take steps to grow the economy. The only way to achieve this is through spending and encouraging small businesses to hire one person at a time.

Tobin Smith, ChangeWave Research: I may be old-fashioned, but the best way to create jobs is to have private businesses invest their own capital into creating positions that are actually needed. It's a relatively new thing for us to be borrowing money from countries like China, and throwing it at some government-created job that costs $250,000 to create. I'm a small businessperson. I invest money in areas I see opportunity. A $3,000 tax credit is not nearly enough incentive for me to hire somebody, pay them $70,000 a year and give them health care benefits.

Gary B. Smith, TheChartman.com: We've never been able to spend our way out of a recession, or even the Depression. Six years after F.D.R. started the new deal, unemployment was at 20 percent. To be fair, George W. Bush was the father of the current stimulus, along with TARP. As a result, our deficit has jumped from $200 billion to almost $1.6 trillion. Unemployment is at 10 percent. I guess I'm curious as to why spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars is going to help unemployment.

Pat Dorsey, Morningstar.com: I think we're already out of the recession. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. There's absolutely no reason to spend more money now. We just need to wait this out.

Nineteen Percent of Federal Workers Make Over $100K; Time to Cut Their Pay?

Tobin Smith: These numbers are unbelievable. About 1,100 civilian employees at the Defense Department were paid over $100,000, now it's over 10,000 employees! Taxpayers have got to be fed up with all this. We go after the pay of bankers who pay billions in taxes, and let these guys have a pass?

Sarah Flowers: There's a big difference between making $100,000 a year and millions of dollar a year. Federal employees provide a service to the country, and they deserve a market-based, livable wage to perform that job. Most of these jobs are based in the Washington, D.C. area, and if you look at what a competitive salary is the area, it's in a fair range of the market.

Eric Bolling: This really ticks me off more than just about anything. There are 380,000 people on the federal dole making over $100,000 a year. Since the recession started, about 100,000 more in the government are making six-figure salaries. This is all happening as 7.3 million Americans have lost their jobs. This is really one of the worst things I've heard over the past year.

Gary B. Smith: This is throwing a loser on a loser. I'm not in favor of all these government workers making the big bucks. But that's not the big problem. It's the crowded highways out there, and too many government workers. There are some government workers who absolutely work hard and deserve it. But there are whole sections of the government we don't really need, such as the Department of Energy or Education, and that'd save a tremendous amount of money in government spending.

Pat Dorsey: The thing to point out is that federal workers are, on average, better educated than private sector workers. There are a much higher proportion of college degree and graduate degree jobs in the federal workforce, and they get paid more as a result. The government doesn't hire burger flippers. I don't know if they're paid too much or too little, but the point is these statistics of private sector pay versus federal government pay aren't comparable.

10 Million Reasons to Drop Health Care Reform Right Now?

Gary B. Smith: What ever happened to health insurance for everyone? I thought that was supposed to be the bottom line. I guess we have to add these 10 million private sector workers the CBO says are going to lose their insurance to the 35 million Americans who don't have insurance. This is the law of unintended consequences. This is what happens when the government intrudes in the private sector. This is the perfect way for the government to expand its power base.

Sarah Flowers: This is a misrepresentation of what the CBO said. People's health care coverage will be reclassified as they move from small business group plans to non-group plans. The net effect from health care reform is that 31 million people who currently don't have insurance are going to get it.

Tobin Smith: If you read the legislation, out-of-pocket deductibles are going to be a maximum $10,000 for a family. If I'm a private insurer, I'm going to jack my rates up because there's now a limit to what insured people have to pay. As that goes up, and I'm a small business owner, I'm going to have to cut back on insurance coverage I provide to employees. Not to mention, we've seen polls of doctors show they may not serve people who'll pay through Medicare payments.

Eric Bolling: No one really knows what the landscape is going to look like on the backside of health care reform. We don't know if we'll have more Medicare, less Medicare, a government option, etc. Are insurance premiums going to go up or down? There a tremendous amount of uncertainly right now, and given everything that's going on, maybe somewhat should say that this isn't the best time for reform.

Pat Dorsey; I'm not a fan of this health care package. But at the end of the day, reform on the level we're talking about shouldn't have been a promise President Obama or Congress said they were going to see through. Given the expansive reform measures being proposed, you can't sit around and promise that everything is going to be the same if it passes. There's just no way. The health care industry or people's coverage will be the same.


Gary B. Smith: Tiger makes a mea culpa! Buys "ERTS" for a 20 percent play by March

Tobin Smith: Pull the plug on public option! "UNH" spikes 50 percent by June

Pat Dorsey: Protect yourself & profit! "ALL" claims 40 percent in 2 years

Eric Bolling: It's global cooling, not warming! "HES" heats up 30 percent in 1 year

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

Cavuto on Business

On Saturday December 12, 2009 Neil Cavuto was joined by Ben Stein, Charles Payne, Dagen McDowell, Adam Lashinsky and Vincent Curatola.

Six Million New Reasons to Stop a Second Stimulus?

Dagen McDowell, Fox Business Network: I don't think any of us would have been surprised if, say, the $400,000 that went to New York State University in Buffalo for studying the effects of booze drinking and marijuana use on young adults actually went to buying booze and marijuana. We've already tried this, we had our chance in the first stimulus, and it didn't really help. The government on average has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a job. Not to mention tax breaks, spending on infrastructure, green jobs, etc. What more do you want?

Ben Stein, Author, "How to Ruin the USA": Politics is about using the power and the wealth of the public purse to bribe your friends and punish your enemies. It's not surprising this happens. It's extremely unfortunate what happened here with Mark Penn's firm, but not surprising. It looks like the economic recovery could be self-sustaining. I don't think we need another round of billions of dollars going to President Obama's political allies. It's time for government to get its foot off the oxygen tube.

Charles Payne, WStreet.com: There will always be some degree of waste, fraud, and abuse with any major government initiative like this. The thing we have to worry about is all the money the White House seems bent on controlling. They want to take TARP and use it for stimulus two. It's like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But even they blushed at the brassiness of going back again and again and robbing banks! We spent billions on "shovel ready" jobs. Was that not enough? Was that not real money?

Vincent Curatola, Johnny Sack, "The Sopranos": We've got to let the first stimulus breathe a little bit here. This sort of stuff is just accepted in Washington today. President Obama hasn't gotten the message that more government spending is not a part of the solution, it's part of the problem. This degree of over-control is sick. The real problem here is how restricted small businesses are at getting loans. When the banks got their TARP funds, they didn't get the memo to loan the money out. At this point though, it's time for the government to get out of the way, and have the market come back by itself.

Adam Lashinsky, Editor-at-Large, Fortune Magazine: I was in favor of the first stimulus. But I don't think we need another stimulus. We don't need it. The economy is starting to come back, and this is not the right time to do it. This seems to be the conventional wisdom outside of the White House.

President Obama's Sit-Down With Bank Executives: Strong-arm Tactics?

Vincent Curatola: Why didn't President Obama do this months ago when a lot of banks were still holding TARP funds? I guess they've used TARP to clean up their balance sheets. They'll lend to each other, but not lend it out to any business or individual that asks for a loan. At this point, there's not much reason for the banks to care about what President Obama has to say. Most of the big banks have given their TARP funds back.

Charles Payne: The thing that scares me is the other people President Obama has been summoning. Unions, utilities, environmentalists. Whatever it is, the President is exerting his power to positively influence and benefit his political allies. Look at the EPA ruling on C02 during this past week--it's a secret weapon. President Obama has to try and look tough with the bankers since they got $700 billion with no strings attached. They're convenient whipping boys. But there are far bigger things for us to be worried about.

Ben Stein: The President can make these bankers an offer they can't refuse. If they want to be bank holding companies, then they're subject to FDIC rules with a czar to oversee pay, bonuses, pensions, etc. Not to mention strong-arm the companies to lend out to small businesses. But, to his credit, Tim Geithner came up with a good proposal--to have the government guarantee small business loans over the next 12 months. It's a genius move, and will do a lot to help recover the economy.

Dagen McDowell: The threat of more financial regulation is the baseball bat the administration can wield against these banks, whether or not they've given back TARP funds. The consumer is getting its balance sheet corrected and reducing debts. It's the government's debt we've seen sky-rocket recently, which is absolutely incredible. It should not be focused on forcing banks to give out loans right now.

Adam Lashinsky: This issue is a distraction and sideshow. It makes people feel good when they hear President Obama say banks need to lend more. But the fact is that banks will lend when they think it's in their interest to lend. And that's exactly what we want them to do. The TARP bailout helped prevent a run on the system. But it has nothing to do with their lending practices right now. We don't want banks to be forced to lend. That's how this whole problem started in the first place.

Your Tax Money to Help Fight Global Warming Overseas; What?

Charles Payne: This $40 billion number being quoted is low. It's going to go much higher, maybe $150 billion a year and you can bet America will be paying the most. This is a guilt trip by the White House. This is our way of making up for our country's injustices over previous generations. It's this "we owe the world" mentality. That's the message. And what people have to ask themselves is, are you willing to hand out billions and billions of dollars to the world?

Ben Stein: The problem isn't money. The problem here is social control. This administration from the first day has been all about it. If they want to regulate CO2, then they get the EPA to come in and declare it a poison. And when they make a move like that, it increases their power and control over the population. We really have to watch out for is the government seeing no limit on what it can control.

Adam Lashinsky: This issue is not about social control. Our country has an extensive history of ponying up a lot of dollars for huge projects and initiatives. We spend because we're leaders in this world, and we absolutely benefit from that privilege and position.

Dagen McDowell: What I don't understand is comparing this proposal with the Marshall Plan. Why aren't more people outraged by those leaked East Anglia emails that showed a select group of scientists knowingly manipulating data and research about climate change? What's happening here? Why would we move ahead with any major climate proposal after the release of these e-mails?

Vincent Curatola: We're the world's breadbasket for wheat. How about for each bushel, we get a barrel of oil? We can negotiate a much better position and strategy out of this proposal given our standing in the world.

"AAA" Stocks

Charles Payne: Alcoa (AA)

Adam Lashinsky: Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)

Ben Stein: iShares Emerging Markets (EEM)

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

Forbes on Fox

On Saturday, December 12, 2009, David Asman was joined by Steve Forbes, Rich Karlgaard, Bill Baldwin, Neil Weinberg, Mike Ozanian, Quentin Hardy, Victoria Barret, Mike Maiello, and Elizabeth MacDonald.

In Focus: Will President Obama's Jobs Package Create Jobs or Buy Votes?

David Asman: A new push for the President's new jobs plan, with the House voting on what on what could be a $150 billion bill just next week. President Obama says the money will help buy jobs, but someone here says it will really help buy votes.

Steve Forbes: This is more about votes than it is about jobs. They know that they've got a big problem with next year's Congressional elections, so they come up with this grab-bag of stuff. If you look at it, it turns out to not be so good. The good thing on paper is that it cuts the capital gains tax for small businesses, but that's only for one year. And at the same time, they're raising taxes on venture capitalists, which are good job-creators.

Victoria Barret: Look, this is Washington, so there is always a prize that everyone's eyes are on. I do give Obama credit, though, because he is targeting small businesses and he is implementing tax cuts. I'll take a line from Liz and say, "Who knows what Christmas tree ornaments are going to be put on the bill once the House gets done with it?" but so far I like what I see.

Elizabeth MacDonald: The problem is that it's deficit-financed. I think we need to get the government off the backs of the U.S. entrepreneur and that's the way you drive growth, not through government machinations. Let's just get the government out of the entrepreneur's way.

Quentin Hardy: This is not about votes, it's about jobs; and there's nothing wrong with that since unemployment is at 10 percent and the private sector is being strangled by a dysfunctional banking sector. In the third quarter of this year, net private sector lending fell by $2.3 trillion. The government can step in and they've held of in the past, hoping the banks could solve the problem; but as we learned last year, the banks aren't smart and virtuous -- they act in a herd mentality and are overpaid. The only thing I have a problem with is that the lending from the government is going to come through the banks.

Neil Weinberg: I'm more concerned with the government strangling businesses than I am with the banks strangling business. If the banks in their collective wisdom decide that these are loans they do not want to make, why don't we listen to them? The economy is growing and unemployment is dropping, so I'm not sure why the government thinks it needs to intervene here. At what point do we just let the market take care of it?

Bill Baldwin: I think this will genuinely create jobs, but you've got to have output, too. If you just wanted to create jobs, we don't need this bill. We can't just create jobs that will go away when the funding dries out. I love tax cuts but I hate targeted and temporary tax cuts. The way to cut taxes is to do it across the board and make it permanent.

Flipside: Senate 'Compromise' Creates Bigger, Costlier Government-run Care

David Asman: There's a compromise now to drop the government-run part of the Senate health care plan, and Majority Leader Harry Reid says he has one. But Steve warns not to be fooled by this 'compromise.'

Steve Forbes: Changing the name of a weed to a rose doesn't make it a rose, and that's what they're trying to do here. It's still semi-nationalized health care and Medicare is still hugely in debt. The bottom line is that this is going to be very expensive and studies show it's actually going to cost money instead of save money.

Quentin Hardy: This affects four million Americans and that's the real problem; it should be helping more. You already do have government-run health care, because for every Congressman, there are six health industry lobbyists that write the bills and they have gotten themselves an anti-trust exemption that they won't get rid of. The so-called private sector continually milks Medicare by over-billing it—that's the real scandal in this.

Rich Karlgaard: Thank God some people in Washington still have integrity and will call the numbers as they see them. This is a totally ridiculous exercise, particularly with the non-profit organizations. All you have to do to see how poorly these non-profits work is to look at rural telephone companies who have thwarted broadband penetration in rural areas; 70 million people don't have broadband wireless because these local co-ops have no competition. It's just like having a government monopoly. So call it what you will, but it's still government control.

Mike Maiello: Without any of the reforms, costs are going up anyway. Chances are that if you are watching at home, your health care premiums and deductibles are rising next year. So costs are going to go up regardless. The real question is whether or not costs would increase less with this plan than if we just let health care run its course.

Elizabeth MacDonald: None of these plans out there control costs. What they're not talking about with the non-profit exchange is really a halfway house to a public option. I like how the Democrats like it both ways by saying Medicare is such a success because it only has a 2 percent overhead cost, meanwhile the IRS is doing all of the collecting for them. As a result, they aren't regulating it and that's where fraud, waste, and abuse is coming in.

Bill Baldwin: I'm going to be a neo-socialist on this and support a public option more than any Democrat, but I have two small provisos: once we have the public option, the public entity cannot get any subsidies or tax benefits that private insurance companies don't get; and secondly, once we have the public option, we would repeal all regulations on the private insurance companies.

White House Says It's Using $25 Billion in Tax Dollars to Bailout 'Responsible' Americans Who Are Not Paying Their Mortgages; What?

David Asman: Another head-scratcher from the Obama Administration, take a listen to part of a letter Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wrote to congress about using tarp money to bail out homeowners in foreclosure. In it he says "we expect that the vast majority of these potential costs would come from mitigating foreclosure for responsible American homeowners..." Steve Forbes, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says people "not" paying their mortgages are "responsible" homeowners then what are people who "do" pay their mortgages?

Steve Forbes: Hey, we're not talking about people here who are up to date on their payments and suddenly lost their job or something like that. In this case we're talking about speculators and flippers who are part of this housing bubble. We're talking about liar loans. Almost half of those foreclosures are people who lied about their incomes were and then a big bunch of these mortgages too were no down payment. That's not responsible.

Mike Maiello: Well for Steve, me and Tim Geithner all believe that some responsible people can get into trouble through no fault of their own -– we set that aside. Now about these liar loans and things like that, remember that you had officers of these banks that we later bailed out sitting there acting like your friend and fiduciary. The people who got paid on those liar loans are the people who took the commission for getting them signed. A lot of people were kind of hoodwinked.

Mike Ozanian: What Geithner is really trying to do is shift the ball away from the government's responsibility because remember they were going to solve this problem. But right now the government is backing with taxpayer money 90 percent of all new home mortgages -– up from 30 percent four years ago. Yet foreclosures are going up –- expected to be 3.9 million this year –- up 20 percent from last year so their strategy is backfiring.

Quentin Hardy: First quick plug -– Steve I just noticed the color of your super fine book is almost exactly the same as the color of your super fine magazine with this cover story you all should go read. No where you and I seem to disagree is what when Mr. Geithner says responsible homeowners you think it means crooks liars -– people who lied on their applications -– what makes you think that's who he means? Maybe he means people who are underwater but want to stay in their houses and the rate is about to explode because they got a bad ARM or an interest only they were told not to worry about and they want to stay in their homes. We want to keep that supply off the market. And we want them to pay or offer them a lease to own option or a rental option –- some kind of flexibility in the system so there isn't a lot more supply in the markets.

Rich Karlgaard: Markets can't function without price and this is yet another attempt to distort the price of homes. We can't hit a bottom in the housing market and we can't hit a real bottom in the economy and have a full 3-4 percent GDP growth recovery until we know the price of things. This is a distortion that will delay.

Informer: Anti-Green Stocks That Will Make You Some Green!

David Asman: Going green -- with polluters! Our informers have the not so green stocks ready to put some greenbacks in your wallet.

Mike Ozanian: Applied Materials (AMAT)

Neil Weinberg: Westar Energy (WR)

Bill Baldwin: Cemex (CX)

Victoria Barret: Amazon.com (AMZN)

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

Cashin' In

EPA Says CO2 Is Harmful to Humans: Is Ruling Harmful to Jobs?

Jonathan Hoenig, Capitalistpig Asset Management: It is terrible for jobs and it's terrible for humankind. Look around your house. Look around your apartment. Everything we use in our lives depend on carbon. Creating carbon, using carbon, exhaling carbon. Cars, yes, computers, medicine, food. Human life depends on carbon. Using science which we know in the last couple of weeks from the climate-gate scandal is suspect. This is a way that bureaucrats will control energy. You control energy, you control life and mankind. Once again we have bureaucrats and politicians going to be involved in every element of not only industries but of human life. It is not just the jobs issue. Many refineries, companies are coming out and saying we just have to shut down plants in this country. We cannot possibly afford to retool these plants to deal with the EPA's ruling from Monday.

Julian Epstein, Democratic strategist: I think it's an interim ruling. I think it is the sky is falling rhetoric. We heard it a lot with during the 1990's with the clean air amendments and actually what we saw was environmental regulations then and jobs grew incredibly including the industries that were regulated. The consensus on car carbon dioxide emissions is overwhelming in the scientific community. The Supreme Court says the E.P.A. has the right to regulate this way. This is a question about whether we will lead the green jobs revolution or be following behind. There are still people stuck in the Stone Age and don't want to move into the green future. Green jobs are the jobs of the future.

John Layfield, Nutritionmarket.com: In all fairness, the sky is falling on both sides. You have one side saying that the world is going to warm and New York is going to be flooded within 20 years, overreacting. You have the other side saying man has nothing to do with this. We are sticking CO2 in the air. That is something that is bad and you have the majority of science that says that is contributing to greenhouse gas. You have some people that are sinners. The problem here is how are we going to handle it? Cap and trade does not work. China loved cap and trade. They're pushing it because the cap doesn't matter to them. The trade, they're going to get all the benefits from renewable energy. It will add billions of cost to this economy and do zero for CO2 emissions.

Tracy Byrnes, Fox Business Network: But I do think that first of all, the majority of greenhouse gases come from China and India, so before we start shutting plants down and crippling our economy here, let's make sure they're doing their share over there. We have to get the CO2 under control. We have to do it properly. We can't just go panicking and forcing plants to shut down because of regulations that they're just throwing out, because they don't know what the heck else to do and this hurts our economy when they shoot first and ask questions later. We need to think about this logically.

Jonas Max Ferris, Maxfunds.com: I ignore the quality of life part of this because my house produces a lot of garbage. I want bureaucrats to tell me not to throw it along the streets of my town. By the same logic if we get rid of the former regulations the EPA has created, catalytic converters and things like that, could we create jobs and get rid of all of the environmental rules of the last 50 years, probably a few jobs. I don't think that's a good way of doing it.

Fast Food Safer Than School Food: Proof Government Health Care Will Be Unsafe?

Tracy Byrnes: It screams brown bag your lunch! That's what it screams. The private companies set standards ten times more stringent than our public school system right now. Our kids are not getting the best of the best. Why? Because the government is involved. Education systems don't have any money to spend on anything, in particular, our children's food, so this is a perfect example of why we do not want our government involved in our personal lives, because this is why it is affecting us. This is reason I'm late every morning because I have to make thee lunches five days a week.

Jonas Max Ferris: One reason is that the E.Coli breakout at Jack in the Box led to higher restrictions because they don't want their brands hurt. They have brands to lose. The government doesn't, which is one of the reasons why private restaurants do a better job than the public ones. However, there is a lot to learn from this story. It is interesting for healthcare because it shows that the government does one thing fairly well; deliver a low-grade cheap product to the people. Half the kids don't pay for school lunch. The other half are paying $3.5O that is a crummy service. TGI Friday's should be serving better lunches, but it wouldn't cost $2.70 And that's what we should take away for healthcare. The government shouldn't be delivering a cheap product.

Jonathan Hoenig: Jonas, you go take your low grade crappy healthcare, Jonas, I don't want it. These businesses have built a reputation, Jonas, as you point out in providing tasty, efficient, clean and safe food. That's why they have billions and billions served.

John Layfield: Look, 31 million kids eat this dog food that we're serving them, and 62 percent of them don't have great moms like Tracy that give them a brown bag to take to school. 62 percent of them have to have their meal, and as the President says this is the best meal they will have all day and we're feeding them dog food. Look at prevention in healthcare.

We thought polio would be a trillion dollar disease. Prevention makes it something that has been eradicated. Give these kids something good to eat or the government will be taking care of them the rest of their lives.

Julian Epstein: The data from this came from the food lunch program administered by the Bush administration, the previous administration, which wanted to end salmonella screening and put in place radiation, so, look, the problem in the school lunch program should get fixed but making the leap from that to the Medicaid and Medicare system seems to be a little silly. The Medicaid and Medicare system operate with 30 percent less waste than does the private insurance system. They are -- it is a very, very popular system with seniors, and with the beneficiaries of the system. What Congress is talking about right now is extending this system to people 55 -- in the 55 age bracket and for about 150 percent of the poverty level.

New Labor Dept Rule Will Make It Easier to Unionize Companies: Good or Bad for Recovery?

John Layfield: This is absolutely a recovery killer. Democratic administrations love to help the unions because they get support from them. You cannot name any company or any type of sector that has benefited from unions in the last thirty years. But you can name several—like the airlines, automakers, and baseball—that have almost failed because of unions.

Jonas Max Ferris: Broadly speaking, I think that when you increase the power of labor and unions, you are increasing labor rates and unemployment; but you also increase wages. We have got to decide what's better at this point.

Tracy Byrnes: This will also raise health care costs and is not going to benefit companies at the end of the day. I'm not sure why we haven't learned our lesson from the auto bailout. We've played this game before and we lost miserably—because the unions won. This is like giving money to the devil in hopes that he does the right thing, but he's not going to.

Julian Epstein: I would make the argument that unions have been very good for this country. This issue is about a possible regulation that the Department of Labor is only considering. I actually agree with some of the critics and think that this regulation could be going too far in some cases.

Jonathan Hoenig: This is a basic question of property rights. Shareholders are shareholders voluntarily, just as employees are employees voluntarily. If they don't like the business practices, they can go somewhere else.

What Do I Need to Know?

John Layfield: Tiger Woods is the number one player in golf. Ratings are down 47 percent when he's not playing and he's already caused a 41 percent recall of Tiger-endorsed products. Stay away from stocks tied to Tiger.

Tracy Byrnes: Google has this new program called "Google Goggles" that is basically a search by sight. Right now you can't take pictures of people, but it's coming!

Jonas Max Ferris: The President just got the Nobel Peace Prize for sending more troops to Afghanistan. I think that this is good for the defense industry, since no one is cutting money out of the defense budget anytime soon. Raytheon (RTN) has got a few more years of cash coming.

Jonathan Hoenig: I actually like PBS, the PowerShares Dynamic Media fund. It holds media stocks like Comcast, Time Warner, CBS, and News Corp—I think it's an unexpected strong name right now.