Could 'lone wolf' attacks take toll on US economy?


Cities on Alert After Gunman Goes on Shooting Rampage in Tennessee

Lisa Boothe: This is heartbreaking but, yes, it is going to have an impact on the economy. There's no doubt about it. Look, it's really two-fold. First is a resources standpoint. You've got the destruction of property. You've got the cost of emergency personnel. You have to re -- the rebuilding of the infrastructure and buildings and also have the federal government and private sector, you know, doing additional security measures. The secondary part of this is the undermining of consumer confidence that it could have.

Chuck Rocha: That's what makes us Americans and that's why people hate us because of our freedom, resolve, because we're free to speak out and do what we want to do. On the fourth of July, I decided to take me and my family to a baseball game. I thought about the dangers there, I thought, no, they're not going to win. I'm going to go on with my life and there's a lot of resolve with a lot of Americans and it's their way to say we're going to continue what we've always done, we're not going to let the terrorists win.

Gary B. Smith: You know, that's the problem. Something like, you know, running a plane into the world trade center is one thing. It's so horrible, magnificent -- I don't mean magnificent in a good way, by the way -- it's so stupendous, you think that's a one-off, that can't affect me. But the D.C. Sniper, I remember my kids were in high school, all of the high school outdoor activities were shut down for about 2 1/2 weeks, and I think of the scenario, I think Chuck has this kind of whistling past the graveyard mentality, we're resilient, we are. Until it hits you. I think if someone drove in and left a bomb in the Holland tunnel one day and then the next day in the Lincoln Tunnel, people wouldn't go into Manhattan, at least via tunnels. It would shut down the city. As Lisa implied all of the lost commerce, productivity, wages, things like that, if this stuff started going on, these one-offs, these lone terrorists, I think it could have a devastating effect on a city and the economy.

Jonas Max Ferris: Let's, first of all, the direct impact, I don't think, the scale of these attacks would either do a daily one, the actual fixing windows and security detail, that's not existent in an economy of our size. Psychological damage, we talked about the lone -- the shooter in D.C., I think even that one's overplayed because Americans, we get used to risks after a while. It becomes the way of doing business. When it's unusual, an example, past July 4th a flesh eating bacteria kept folks out of the ocean in Florida but it was freakish, scary, new, the same with the sharks in south Carolina. It was on the beach getting sunburned which increases your risk of skin cancer which is something you can control but it doesn't scare people because we're used to that. There's more limbs cut off from diabetes than small-scale attacks. We'll get used to it, a plane crash, we still fly. I don't think it's enough of a scale. It's not getting bigger. They're not getting more dangerous. We will adjust to it, it will become like every other risk when it comes to this.

John Layfield: My take is not necessarily if it gets bigger, my take is if it's a continuous thing. What Gary was talking about with the D.C. Sniper, there was a continuous worry you could be next. As horrific as this tragedy was this week, perpetrator was caught. As horrible as marathon bombing in Boston, the perpetrators were caught. If you have a single lone wolf events we have $18 trillion economy, as terrific as loss of life is it's not going to affect the greater economy. It's when you have cells, like Gary's talking about, if they bombed the Lincoln Tunnel and know the Holland Tunnel could be next or a succession of events that go forward, as long as it's single lone wolf events it not going to hurt this economy unless they go after something like the infrastructure, then it could start harming the economy.

Calls Growing to Block Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities

Gary B Smith: Look, what these -- I'm all in favor of cities, local jurisdictions doing their own thing, that's what makes America great, when it states' rights as opposed to federal government. It's wrong for cities to do that. The best solution, fine you want to do that, you're not getting federal funding, and I --that's the clearest way to do it. Then we'll see how strong cities like San Francisco are in harboring dangerous criminals.

Jonas Max Ferris: Also attitude that's like a welfare town France. Like let me back up, Mark Zuckerberg lives there, paid $2 billion to the federal government, they can have their own money, run their crazy utopian if they want, it's like Mississippi. Democrats were in charge, they'd say cut off federal money to South Carolina. Its people are dying because of crazy gun laws. When does it stop in it's not a federal issue, it's like race or something, a lot of big states, look, I went through Jordan with a friend that got a speeding ticket. If you're going over 15, they give you $600 tickets. I think it's ridiculous. They're shaking money out of people from Connecticut. But that's not the scope of the federal government to punish states for their own way of doing things.

John Layfield: A complete difference in laws that are silly that you think are silly and don't agree with and the fact that local communities are sanctuaries where they're subverting federal law. Look, this Juan Lopez Sanchez deported five times, the feds asked specifically, if he gets out we need to know about it. San Francisco specifically does not comply with the federal regulations. Because of that, criminals are what's going to sanctuary cities like this. I don't think they deserve federal funds. We're not talking about illegals that came here for better life. We're talking about criminals that are drawn to sanctuaries because one Lopez Sanchez said that was the reason he went to San Francisco.

Chuck Rocha: I think the cities are trying to put a Band-Aid on a chest wound. The federal government won't stand up and do anything. As the criminal came across the border five times. We passed a nonpartisan bill in the senate that would have doubled security to make sure this doesn't happen. Do you agree or disagree with the sanctuary cities? These people are dealing with a immigration at local level. But we should fix the overall problem, you'll fix criminals like this coming across the border.

Lisa Boothe: Look, this horrific tragedy underscored the lawlessness that we've seen in the country when it comes to immigration policies. Look, congress controls the purse and they absolutely should cut off funding from cities who are not complying with immigration officials. Look, it's important to remember, this is not an isolated incident. We've had over 8,000 illegal immigrants either have facing charges, have been charged, released in the last eighth months alone in sanctuary cities.

Gov. Walker Admin Sues Federal Government in Effort to Drug Test Food Stamp Recipient

John Layfield: Absolutely, because the message is -- the bigger problem we have is 17 million people on food stamps in 2000, there's 47 million on food stamps now, almost three-fold increase, that's disgraceful. We're not doing anything to break generational poverty. To break generational poverty you don't give handouts you teach them how to adopt in life. You need to start teaching them now. Need to be drug-free, a good way to do it to allow them to get food stamps.

Chuck Rocha: This is not only dumb, it's dumb and cruel. You don't want to do this to people who are trying to lift themselves up. If you want to say it's going to cost you three times as much to test these people if you want to save tax dollars, drug test Congress. Everybody who fails, they're out of here.

Jonas Max Ferris: I agree with everything except the part of the drug testing, the key point of. Food stamps are not a reward for being drug-free, they are -- because you can't afford food. If you want to means test it save the taxpayer money, all you need is a scale because a lot of people get food stamps are obese, at least that directly deals with the issue, subsidizing food when they have too much. When you start bringing drugs in, you're bringing up stuff that voters want to hear that don't like people on food stamps, nothing to do with saving the taxpayer money or they'd address drug addiction with disability people they're getting paid because they can't get a job. The nation should be drug tested. You can be a drug addict and hungry.

Gary Kaltbaum: I disagree with John on this one. This is another form of government as nanny. So maybe I agree with chuck. The government doles out a lot of money. Do we start drug testing people getting Medicare? Do we start drug testing people getting social security? The government deems this is wrong and this is right. Look, I think there's a lot of problems with the food stamp problem, a lot of fraud, a lot of waste, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I draw the line when the government has to come in and start telling people of any persuasion, whatever their means, how to live their lives.

Lisa Booth: The federal government is the nation's biggest drug tester. What Scott Walker's trying to do is give people a hand up, not a handout, that's why he has job training programs in place. Majority of businesses drug test, college athletes are drug tested, professional athletes drug tested and sometimes high school athletes drug tested. Nothing controversial here.

Stock Picks

Gary B. Smith:  (AMZN) is the "real deal"; up 20 percent by 2016

John Layfield: Invest your kid's $35/week allowance! (SPY) makes a 15 percent gain in 1 year

Jonas Max Ferris: Robots are taking over! (ROBO) delivers a 20 percent gain in 1 year