Published January 23, 2017
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.
HILLARY CLINTON'S PUSH FOR $1 TRILLION IN NEW TAXES SPARKING DEBATE
Steve Forbes: Well, this will body slam the U.S. economy. Knock it right to the ground. It will hurt investment, especially crazy capital gains tax, which will be the heist in America history. That hurts investment, small businesses. So, if you want to be like France without the charm, that's what she's going to do to the American economy. Make the Obama years look like the roaring 20s.
Bruce Japsen: Well, i think what she wants to do is party like it's 1999 and '98 and '97 and '96 when the deficits went down when her husband's tax plan, it did raise tax, but they paid down deficits. I think the tax poll icy center says it would reduce deficit by a trillion dollars and i don't think that's a bad thing.
Rich Karlgaard: Yeah, look, most of them aren't investments as she says. They're transfer payments. We already have a big scandal about disability payments. Far too many people are faking disable disabilities. What Bill Clinton understood and what Hillary Clinton does not understand is first, you have to grow the economy. Then we can talk about more revenue out of government, but to tax people more off a 2 percent growth economy would be disastrous.
Bill Baldwin: Little skeptical. Now, I think taxes are damaging to the economy. But big government spending is even more damaging to the economy. So, here's my truce with President Hillary. I'll let you raise taxes by x if you cut spending by 2 cls x and of course, she's not doing that.
John Tamny: There's no such thing as federal investment. Government can only spend or invest what it's taxed or borrowed from its first. You have to consider the unseen what we would be doing in the private sector with that money if the government didn't take it away. Such a huge tax on the U.S. economy. Not to mention, capital gains tax will be a penalty on the very people investing in the companies and jobs.
Carrie Sheffield: You're right. If it were the case you would spend your money on infrastructure and prosperity, we would have seen that in Japan where they've spent so much on infrastructure. They've got nothing to return. We don't want to be like Japan. We also don't want to be like Argentina. Hillary Clinton’s basically setting her up to be the new Evita Perone of America. It's interesting what she was saying in her case. I'm caring about outcomes. No, she's only caring about input. We need to be accountable for the outcomes and that hasn't happened. We've had the war on poverty. Trillions of dollars that have been spent. Paul Ryan has been good about this. We haven't had outcomes, accountability for the money we're spending
MILITARY MOVES BY CHINA, RUSSIA IGNITE NEW CALLS FOR MORE US DEFENSE SPENDING
Steve Forbes: Absolutely. When the U.S. is weak, gets bad behavior around the world as we saw in the 1930s. Reagan was right. Strength begets peace and Barack Obama's seen as weak, so China's pushing, trying to divert attention from their domestic problems. Putin's doing the same thing. Divert attention from his domestic problems. By being aggressive against their neighbors. That's bad for the economy and bad for world peace.
John Tamny: I don't think so. I'm not understanding this. Let's face it. Military spending is a tax just like any other government spending. It's not that we shouldn't have one, but should we be spending this much. What interest do we have in the South China Sea. Do we think if we don't flex our muscles there, they're going to move on us near the United States? Why would they anger their biggest market in the world? I don't get this.
Bill Baldwin: I think being a pushover now invites trouble later. Steve is right. It happened 78 years ago in Germany. It happened more recently in Syria, you can't be a pushover.
Bruce Japsen: Well, I think what the Obama administration has done, they haven't done nothing. They while they shifted the naval, more of the naval fleets there, or in the process of doing it, it's more of a 60-40 split rather than a 50-50 split and Bush and Cheney should have been more of that while they were fud ling around in the middle east.
Carrie Sehffied: No, no. And as Marco Rubio has pointed out, this president has cut spending by 21 percent. That's enormous. Almost a quarter of the budget. It's not just the Philippines. Japan, Vietnam, the entire South China Sea. We need to see more from Japan. Japan's prime minister has been trying to step up and take more responsibility. We need to back Prime Minister Abe up. When we pull out and don't show leadership, that's when ISIS comes. When we pull out our troops in the Middle East, that's what happens.
Rich Karlgaard: Yeah, they were very disturbing and Steve just nails it as he always does. The collapse of oil and gas prices around the world is has dealt a devastating blow to Russia’s economy and they're trying to either distract us or become territorially acquisitional. We have to spend better in our defense spending. We spend a trillion dollars on an F-35 next generation fighter jet and nobody likes it. Why can't we get Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to design this jet.
COMPANIES SIGN PLEDGE TO BAN CRIMINAL HISTORY QUESTIONS FROM JOB APPLICATIONS
Bill Baldwin: Banning the boss could backfire on the people it's supposed to help. It forces employers to resort to proxy pressures to screen out potentially dangerous job applicants. That would mean demanding a college degree in jobs that don't require it and that trend is harmful to people who don't come from privileged families.
John Tamny: It's a bad thing. I love the idea of the U.S. being the land of second chances, but I think all companies are different. Some should be free to hire those with criminal records and some should choose not to. It's an individual choice.
Steve Forbes: You also have the problem of liability. The company hires somebody with a criminal background and commits violence, company could be liable for it and there are obviously ranges of crimes. Nonviolent crimes to very, very silent crimes. Employers should have a chance to see this person we can take a chance with. The other one, not so sure.
Carrie Sheffield: Right, no, i would absolutely want to know as an employer and as a co-worker, i would want to know. If there was some violent history, but Steve is right though. It depends on the type of crime. I do believe in second chances. I think most Americans do. When you look at the data, the -- in New York, good think tank, they've shone if you're a violent criminal, your rate is much higher. It's more difficult to hire a violent criminal than a nonviolent criminal.
Rich Karlgaard: I think it's silly to deprive employers of asking that question. I think Bill Baldwin brings up an excellent point about the consequences. It's going to affect a whole class of people that are struggling to today.
Bruce Japsen: Depends on the business and I think the businesses should have some say. It is a pledge and i think you want people to if they've served their debt to society, that she should be able to go to work somewhere without any sort of reprisal. However, in the sense of sexual predators and so forth, there are public and private schools across the country that require background checks, so it's a complicated issue.
Rich Karlgaard: Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-B)
Bill Baldwin: Metlife (MET)