Hillary Clinton ties voter anger to the 2008 recession


Hillary Clinton Ties Voter Anger to the 2008 Recession

Gary B. Smith: You know Dagen, listen to that clip, i thought we were all like suspended in time for the last eight years as if we didn't elect a new president, Congress didn't change, nothing's changed, it's still, and it will always be George Bush and 2008 forever and ever. It's not the recession. Look what happened at end of 2008, we threw the republicans out of the presidency, and since then, it's been all Obama. What have we reaped since then? A few things. The worst economic recovery in the last 50 years. People care, Dagen about three things, money in their pocket, do they have a job, and they care about their house. Well, look at those three things. We have median household income has been flat for eight years. Median wages are flat. We got a labor force participation that has dropped about 4 percent. We got housing that is down about 4 percent in terms of how many people own houses in the country. I'm looking for the good news here. You see this payoff Friday where we had this terrific jobs report, 75 percent of those jobs are minimum wage jobs. This is a horrible recovery. That's why people are angry.

John Layfield: Yeah, and the highest GDP in president Obama's term has been 2.5 percent. The average GDP of a recovery of six years has been double what it is right now. We've had 17 million people on food stamps in 2000; it's almost tripled in 16 years. That's why people are mad. And people are mad, understand, at Miss Clinton, they're mad at the politicians, the status quo, they see a government that is horribly inefficient, and nothing has been done on the major issues because these politicians can't get along. The appeal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is not because people love Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, it's just they fight everything else. They are voting against the system because they know the system is not working and that is what is a problem right now with voter apathy and the angst that is going on in American public. It's a status quo, they don't like it.

Jessica Tarlov: I know, I hear that from you guys all the time. I think president Obama's done a pretty good job. We have 14.4 million new jobs, unemployment, 5 percent, 4.9 percent, I think it went up to 5 today. Adding over 200,000 jobs a month. A lot are minimum wage; we have a $15 minimum wage now. And I know that maybe it's not the recovery that many hoped for, I don't think it's as bad as its being made out to be. I would like to say, I rarely liking to disagree with Hillary Clinton; I think this goes back further and really to 2000. And we need to talk about the two wars that we were involved in. And i think that voters are also angry because they're scared. And they feel that we're under direct threat from radical Islamic terrorism. And I think that we can go back to Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars that people don't think that we should have been in. And I think that that's a major part of the issue that she wasn't highlighting, and that's a George Bush problem and a president Obama problem.

Suzy Welch: Look, people get mad and the electorate on both sides is mad right now, democrats are mad and republicans are mad. That's why there are outsiders candidates for both parties, people get mad when they're scared, that's the terror attack part and when they're, when they feel cheated, and that's what John and Gary are talking about. People feel cheated. What do they feel cheated about? They feel cheated out of the American dream. It's if you worked hard and you played by the roles, you would have a better life than your parents. And this pre-dates 2008, I'll give you that, it goes back, 2000 and then all the way through president Obama's term where people feel like okay, I worked hard and I played by the rules, but the only way to break out of the household income which stays exactly the same is to get a college degree, but getting a college degree means taking on enormous debt. Success in this country is reserved for bankers and tech geniuses, and I'm not one of those. They're mad on both sides, they're scared, and that's not going to go away. They are not easy, but we need to restore for people for the anger to go away.

Jonas Max Ferris: The recovery was strong were it just hasn't been strong for about three fifths of the country, and that's really I think the issue and people are looking to blame politicians for it or look for solutions for their politician to solve it. And really it goes back to the '70s. I've got to tell you, it's not even '99. The bottom line is this country got into a situation where it's not all votes anymore. About two fifth of the vote is gone; the dinghies don't go up anymore. And there's no politician to blame for it. These skillsets have not valuable on an increasing level every year forever. That was a thing in the '50s and '60s, unfortunately, they take more downside. They have asymmetric drown sides, '08 thing that Clinton talking about, they took a big hit, everyone lost their jobs, they didn't come back as fast and they're not going to, but the rich people did. And that's what's going on; trump and Bernie can't fix it. I have bad news for everybody.

New Questions as Administration Begins Next Round of Gitmo Transfers

Suzy Welch: You know, the white house would love for us to make Gitmo about financials and they'd love to make it about the numbers and the cost, and it really is expensive. I mean, each prisoner costs about $5 million, it's costs that much for them to have their personal doctors and lawyers and nurses and the soccer field, but at the end of the day, this is not an economic conversation, as much as I love running the in your opinions on everything. This is a security conversation. And what happens with these prisoners when they leave Gitmo? Sent to other countries or president Obama would like to put some of them in U.S. prisons, and if you ask me, the cost of that is the cost of our freedom because they go into those prisons and they're going to be exposed to really a very vulnerable population of Americans who could be radicalized. So, you know, I don't to want talk about the numbers when it comes to Gitmo, I want to talk about security and I want to talk about safety. I think that's what the Gitmo conversation is. I'm not biting that it's about the numbers.

John Layfield: We're closing it because of a campaign promise. Remember also President Obama promised you could keep your own doctor; the ocean levels were going to start receding. Politicians make promises they know is not true. This one haunted him. We have a precedent with this; we shut down Campbooka in 2011. That is what formed ISIS, when we shut that down. There is a consequence for letting these guys go. Look, Gary B. And I have made this clear, this is about economics, we don't like the fact that it is in Cuba and we're spending so many millions of dollars, we could house this, I believe, from my personal point of raw is, somewhere else in a better economic fashion, but letting these guys go because it's a legacy issue, because you want us to fulfill a promise you made during your campaign is the wrong reason to do it and we are putting American safety at risk.

Jonas Max Ferris: Let's talk about the cost. It comes up a lot. It's $3 million a person or whatever, there's no per person of fee. They're not eating $3 million of food. It doesn't lower your cost structure, you have to have the doctors, it's not like cancel the HBO prescription, and he's going to Syria. If you're going to talk about the cost, the whole base is absurd. It's our oldest base, we're not going to get invaded from Central America, from the Spanish anymore, and we don't need a naval base in a place where we don't have electrical hook-ups or water. You have generators, the place is a fiasco, and I'm not talking about the prison, the whole base is multibillions a year, we don't talk about that. It's not in the budget. It should be cut and put the base somewhere -- if we need one anymore in a place like Puerto Rico where we have, it's our place.

Gary B. Smith: Exactly, Dagen, we have two issues here, we have the security issue, thoroughly discuss, that's one reason to keep Gitmo. Look the prisoners get out, we're not achieving our goal there. Second on the financial issue, Jonas kind of got around the edges, but the fact is we have maintained the same number of millionth personnel, health care people, legal people, even though the Gitmo population has shrunk. No wonder it's 2 or $3 million per person, we have 2,000 military people there. If we shrunk the personnel down to the amount of persons we have, guess what, it comes down to about the same cost as a max security prison here. And guess what, if wet close Gitmo, the 2,000 military people, you know the military, they're not going to say, oh, well that's it, you're not the military anymore. No, they get redeployed elsewhere. They aren't going away. On the security issue, Obama is a loser, financial issue, Obama's a loser. Let's keep Gitmo for now.

Jessica Tarlov: I understand that. I just would fit with the classification that Obama is a loser. First of all, I think we have 91 prisoners right now. Majority of whom who haven't been charged for anything. That's un-American. That's not how we do business. And on top of that, we have for instance the ads facility in Colorado houses the shoe bomber, why can't they go there? And Suzy talked about the possibility of the prisoners then infiltrating an American population, they're in solitary confinement 23 hours a day and get an hour outside of there. I think that the chances are low. As a democrat, we love to spend money. I'm not going to use the money about. It's not about the $450 million; I believe it's what's right.

Apple Asking the FBI to Reveal How it Hacked the San Bernardino iPhone

John Layfield: No, absolutely not. What a crazy story. Look, the government wanted Apple to build them a back door into all of their phones so they could get into it, Apple said no, I agree with that. Now the government, what they should have done to begin with, got the information they needed, Apple wants to know how. Apple's business either. Turn about fair play here and if the government could figure out a way to do it completely getting off that privacy.

Jessica Tarlov: I agree. I was torn about this when it came up, Apple refusing to get the information and now I think everyone should have their best interest. And I think the FBI should not turn that information over to Apple, but hopefully they can meet in the middle going forward. That we have some rule is of fair play here about how to make sure American are kept safe.

Gary B. Smith: The FBI developed now a competitive intelligence advantage. Don't give it to Apple, they're going to spread it around potentially and ruin it. This is a defensive advantage that we have. FBI should stay put on this.

Jonas Max Ferris: I don't think the government has a competitive advantage over Apple in any of the things. I think the government can't get in the phone, and is pretending and Apple is calling their bluff. Show us how you got in. Send us one picture; I don't think they got in. I don't think it's an issue here.

Suzy Welch: I just don't get this story at all. I don't get it. I mean Apple would not cooperate with the FBI, and then the FBI gets the information, Apple says share that candy with us. Apple should learn what it looks like and to play on the same team as the American people. They shouldn't get the information the FBI got because they were on our team before. This should be the consequences and see what it feels like. We are on the same team, fighting a war, and I hope Apple will cooperate want FBI.

Stock Picks

Gary B Smith: (TSLA) TESLA up 50 percent 2 years

Jonas Max Ferris: (FMC) up 20 percent in 1 year

John Layfield: (T) AT&T up 20 percent in 1 year