back from china and mexico and jobs back from all the places, but he doesn't say how. some of those jobs are come back from some places because of very low cost of natural gas and other things in the country. the petro chemical company brought jobs back to louisiana and elsewhere. i was listening for really the defining difference between the republicans and the democrats. the democrats want to be the redistributionist party. we're going to pass this out and flatten the economy. the republicans are supposed to be the grow the pie party. i was listening for how do you grow the pie? i heard a lot about getting government out of the way, turning business loose. that's rhetoric i've heard for 30, 40 years. i'm not sure that there was anything very new there. i'm still listening for that ali. you're onto the right question. i think those candidates could have and should have been pressed much harder about how this will actually get done. >> let's talk about the debt. it came up.

they talked about it. they talked about balance budget amendments. huckabee and kasich talk about how they balance budgets although they come from places where you have to balance the budget by law. the application of it is a little bit, you know, not really a fair comparison. they talked about that a lot. again, you look at a lot of their plans. they include cuts in taxes, increases in spending, and increases in the deficit. every president since nixon has increased the deficit and has seen the debt limit or the debt go up afterwards. the party that's supposed to be about smaller government and less debt didn't come up with solutions to that tonight. >> no. i mean, i think that the irony actually is there's one president out there who didn't contribute to the deficit all that much, and it was a democrat, it was clinton. he balanced the budget for a short period of time, right? i think that kasich tonight, i think, made the strongest case

for a financial house in order. of course, you're right. he's talking about ohio, and ohio has to balance the budget. he's done that, but he has the numbers at that back him up and the jobs. whether he -- it's because of the natural gas they've got and some of the economic boom they had and trump attacked him for that. nonetheless, kasich can point to some real economic cause and effect and some of the budget matters in his own state that prove logical. he's saying he's going to bring that to the federal government. there's a really big problem with that. the state of ohio is not trying to run a 2 million person military. the state of ohio doesn't have to pay off the national debt. so it's much, much more complicated than this. it's very good to talk about it. i think they're on the right track. they should be talking about and much more of it. that's going to be fascinating when we start to see the republicans and democrats go at one another. again, it's bro mine territory a little bit. they're saying this and it's good and it's what they want to

stand for. how they actually apply it to washington is very tough to see. this is a very deep problem, as you know. >> i'm with you in that i appreciate that the conversation is at least starting to go that way. david shuster, one of the problems for economists or for financial reporters who want specifics out of these candidates, when you ask for them too early, sometimes you get half-baked ideas. now the governors that are running, kasich and jeb bush and huckabee and chris christie, sort of have ideas about legislation and how difficult it is to get these big plans, like big tax reform through a legislative organization. they're not doing well in polls. those who promise bigger things are doing better, although there may not be a road or path to success in all the reform them promise in debates like this. >> that's the great irony. each governor you mentioned they're described by economists asking for incremental reform as

opposed to paul, cruz, and even mike huckabee asking for a version of the flat tax. the economists that we've spoken to say the flat tax is something that would actually increase the debt and it would also exacerbate the problems of income inequality. there wasn't a follow-up. it wasn't like somebody was pinned down and said, can you defend the flat tax and explain why the economists have it wrong? there wasn't that follow-up in this debate. at least there's a discussion about it now. again, the economists would say something like the flat tax will just not work. >> they all did sort of refer to -- let me get -- let's go back and talk about president reagan for a second, david. they all talked about president reagan. the last time we had meaningful tax reform in this country was under president reagan. i think that was still too long ago for frank to be the bureau chief at cnn in washington, but you were that was the kind of thing, right, david? >> that's right.

keep in mind, marginal tax rates were higher in ronald reagan's first term than in barack obama's entire term. so that's one problem. and then the second point and circles back to the original idea of boogie men that republicans are going after. another one in addition to president obama, look at bernie sanders. there was a charge tonight if bernie sanders was elected had a marginal tax rate of 90%. that's flat out not true. >> i want to interrupt you. let's go to michael shore right here with ben carson. >> why guess when soon you know? >> what felt the best to you tonight? >> i was glad to see that the audience was engaged, and they were paying attention to the way the questions were being asked. for instance, whether they got to the manatech question. doesn't that mean you're not paying attention? just crazy stuff like that. i fund find that out across the nation. you notice every day there are ten new articles saying carson

said this or that, but the people aren't paying attention to it, and that's good. >> thanks a lot, doctor. >> number one on twitter, number one on facebook. >> that was ben carson talking to us a little bit about the way his debate went. if you're ben carson, you know, i'm talking to you, ali and david and even going back to what frank was talking about, if you're ben carson tonight, you didn't get the substantive questions on issues on the economy. so it was sort of a lost opportunity for people who wanted to ask somebody who may not be as well-suited to answer the questions those very questions. dr. carson saying, of course, the debate went well and he had the crowd on his side. he has to be a little bit happy because the questions he feared in his campaign beforehand said it's not his comfort zone. he didn't get the questions. so to him it was a victory, ali. >> it's a good point, michael, to make. >> such a good point to make that he's on more familiar ground whether he's not asked

specific questions. the great irony in all of this is ben carson probably gained the greatest ground with a statement a lot of people say is misleading. when he made that comment tonight when he was asked what about your links to this supplement company called manatech you were associated with? i only gave paid speeches but we have videos of ben carson saying they funded a $2.5 million endowment in his honor at johns hopkins. he wasn't just giving speeches and benefitted financially. he turned that into one of the crowd-pleasing moments of the night by attacking the media to raising the question. >> it was a big success for ben carson. in fact, in this crowd it was very popular, michael shore, to talk about the mainstream media and blame the mainstream media. rubio referred to as a hillary clinton biggest superpac. every time they attacked the

media, it was the loudest applause in the room, michael. >> it was us versus them. i didn't go into tonight thinking i was part of the superpac, but i come out as part of the superpac. you score points when you go against the media. republicans have done it a lot, and you also score points with the audience and the crowd. ben carson at the end of the debate wanted to thank the audience here. they didn't get what they wanted from the media asking the questions. it's an old tactic. chris christie employed it towards the end as well. here's the thing. it also deflects from some of the issues that they were talking about. i think when you have the media as your scapegoat you're not answering a question and those are questions not necessarily asked. mr. trump, can you talk to us for a second? what do you think about how the debate went from having to catch ben carson in the race? >> i think we won. we're number one, by the way, u-but i think we won debate akoording to everybody. thank you. >> no surprise there. donald truch thinks he won the

debate, ali. >> well, we'll have to see. it was a very interesting conversation. i want to bring in former republican congressman bob ingles of south carolina. good to have you here with us. they talked a lot about debt and about balanced budgets and debt ceilings tonight. i wonder how much a president influences these things. this is a creature of congress these days increasingly. congress has been remarkably dysfunctional when it comes to budgets. what are your thoughts about what you heard tonight when it came to debt, deficits and budgets? >> a couple things, ali. first, the president does have a lot to do with that. an effective leader can bring congress along. i think that's one of the problems we've been facing in washington, is president obama is simply been unable to reach to the house, reach to the senate and pull out agreement. so you have to find somebody able to do that.

what's important is these candidates tonight were talking about a solution when it comes to the debt and deficit. when they were talking about something really big, but it sort of passes by and doesn't sound important. but means testing medicare further, means testing social security, increasing the age of retirement, those are big changes. that's when you know people are seriously talking about balancing the budget. he was very happy to see that and not have -- and avoided the thing of foreign aid. what we have to do is cut foreign aid. that's how we balance the budget. it's less than 1% of the budget. when we talk about medicare and social security and medicaid as john kasich was talking, then you're talking -- and defense. those are the big categories. that's where the money is. so i heard some people engaging in solution conversation tonight. that's very encouraging and it's

the kind of leadership that does find followship in the house and senate. >> let me ask you this, though. in terms of the difficulties in trying to get things through congress or as you say the leadership required from a president, who is best equipped to do that? those guys that are governors who can say they were able to do this in their legislatures particularly run r run by another party and those men that were senators or carly fear that or donald trump? who is best to bridge the gap down pennsylvania avenue? >> as somebody who has been in the house and not been in the senate or governor, i will say there is a value to experience. i think that it's particularly valuable to have a governor's experience. senators have to be people that pull other states together. house members have to figure out how to get something going. what worries me the most, i think, is if you say we're going to run it like a business, that

sounds great. you know what? you can't fire the senator from new jersey if you don't like him or you can't fire the senator from california if you don't like her. you don't call them up and say, you're fired. that's not how it works. they were elected, those two senators from california, and you have to with them and appeal to them and reach them. so this is sort of a false thing to say we'll run it like a business, because it's like no business ever. in a business you can fire people. not in government. >> that's music to my ears to hear you say that, because it's not a business. it's something entirely different. congressman, stay there. frank and david shuster and michael shore and mary snow, stay there. when we come back we'll do some fact checking on what was said tonight. you're watching "on target."

that today they will be arrested. >> i know that i'm being surveilled. >> people are not getting the care that they need. >> this is a crime against humanity. >> hands up... >> don't shoot. >> hands up... >> don't shoot. >> what do we want? >> justice. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> explosions going on... we're not quite sure - >> is that an i.e.d.?

welcome back. i'm ali velshi. i'm talking about policy and prosperity and what we heard from the candidates about sharing the economic recovery with the poor and middle class. let me just tell you about something very interesting that happened. a conversation developed in the course of the debate about women

and the pay inequity between men and women in the country. the candidates were asked about it and what they would do about it, and then carly fiorina was asked about it, which i thought would net a remarkably interesting response. it did. it wasn't one i was expecting. i'll ask our producers to line that up for us so i can bring what she said about women and their earning potential and what the federal government -- the issue is here what the federal government can, should or has done -- has done for women. we'll get to carly fiorina in just a second. first, listen to this first comment. >> when you see hillary clinton and bernie sanders and all the democrats talking about wanting to address the plight of working women, not a one mention the fact under barack obama 3.7 million women have entered poverty. not a one mention the fact that under barack obama and the big government economy, the median wage for women has dropped $733.

>> it's the height of hypocrisy for mrs. clinton to talk about being the first woman president when every single policy she espouses and every single policy of president obama has been demonstratably bad for women. >> so mary snow is joining me now. i thought that was a strange turn that carly fiorina took, and then she doubled-down and talked about barack obama. most people remember one of barack obama's first pieces of legislation was the lilly ledbetter act. the idea she went after hillary clinton and barack obama as being anti-women is unusual. what was ted cruz talking about? >> it was unusual, ali. we should point out that hillary clinton was secretary of state in that administration. you know, carly fiorina picking up on those comments from ted cruz about the poverty level,

she has also said something mentioned in the 2012 campaign. she said that 92% of the jobs lost during president obama's first term belonged to women. if you may remember, mitt romney made that same claim in 2012. at the time political fact looked at it saying it was mostly false. in the early part of the recession, men lost jocks first, mosting construction and manufacturing and there was a wave of women losing jobs, and that partly explains why there was such a large number of women when president obama took office. also, carly fiorina mentioned the poverty rate among women saying that it's 14.7% according to the national women's law center. the national women's law center also pointed out that it's the persistent wage gap contributing to poverty, but as we were talking about, there wasn't any concrete details or ideas about

how to breach that wage gap. >> that so much. back to frank, the director of the school of media and public affairs at george washington university. frank, this is a persistent issue, the wage gap between men and women. again, i thought that ted cruz and carly fiorina dropped the ball in terms of having a real opportunity to say what they would do about that. it has not changed all that much since when you were reporting on this. >> no, it's not. in fact, this is one of the big divides in the two parties, of course. they both bemoan it, as they should. the tell me democrats say they will require more pay equity. the republicans don't get into what they would do about it. it was interesting to hear what carly fiorina had to say about that. remember, there are millions of people who have slipped into poverty since 2008 because of the great recession. there are a lot of different ways to look at that. many more children, too. a fifth of the children in this

country live in poverty as well. there are a lot of horror stories out here. i think what would be really interesting to see is whether this conversation goes. you know, if you were sitting across the table from carly fiorina, use spending 20 minutes trying to drill down saying you have identified the problem. what gets done about it? that's a problem we point out that's been around a long time. there has not been an easy solution to it and i suspect carly fiorina herself knows something about it because there wasn't equal pay as they were slimming up the ranks. >> that's why i found it interesting that she took that tact. in other words, she could have spoken from personal knowledge about this. i would imagine she internalizes and knows some of the things she'd like to see happen to equalize this gap between men and women. i was surprised to took that in a strange direction. you spoke to something important, and that's that

president obama took control of the presidency in january of 2008. that was right in the midst. i think that month we lowest 27,000 jobs and that persisted for several months thereafter. at some point there's a locality of talking about that last recession, and a lot less talking about how we end up with this high growth and low employment everybody says they want. if we were running for president, we would want high growth and low unemployment. ultimately there's a question that has been asked for decades about how much a president has to do with those two things. >> well, that's exactly right. i think one of the carly fiorina's talking points here is the president in washington, d.c. actually doesn't drive the economy. it's the private sector that drives the economy. what carly fiorina and others could be saying we're at a point where women are more valuable in places than men because they outnumber men. journalism is one area where i

see my students and most of them are women. and the marketplace is going to answer to this. the problem with that, of course, is you open yourself up to this sort of back to reagan trickle-down attacks of the democrats. it's a tricky business. if you're going to identify the problem, you're going to be expected to have a solution. whether it's the mainstream media or public or democrats or somebody, they're going to say if you let the marketplace do it, what kind of answer is that? the marketplace hasn't addressed it up until now. the marketplace continues to drive the problem. that's the bind she's in. i think that starting this topic, opening this topic invites much more discussion and exploration and some kind of specificity from fear that and the others. >> i want to bring congressman ingles back in in a second. i've been discussing this idea

of who is best-equipped to understand the reality of how hard it is to get things done. right at the beginning of the interview, ohio governor kasich came out really attacking some of his opponents about what they don't know. how everybody is living in fantasy land. listen to this. >> we're just going to have a 10% tithe and that's how we fund the government and fix everything with waste, fraud and abuse? or we're just going to be great, or we're go to shift 10 million americans or 10 million people out of this country leaving their children here in this country and dividing families? folks, we have to wake up. we cannot elect somebody that doesn't know how to do the job. you got to pick somebody who has experience, somebody that has the know-how, the discipline. >> bob joins me again, former republican congressman from south carolina. you know, there are a lot of congressmen who have to run on the coattails or on the trend of

what is going on in the presidential campaign, and you have somebody like kasich who really says these things are not likely. it's great to try and get big numbers in the polls by talking about all these dramatic, big things you will do. really the small incremental things work. how do you respond to that? >> actually i served on a budget committee for six years with john kasich as chairman, and so when i heard that clip about him saying you can't just do it on waste, fraud and abuse, he's so right. you know, it's not like there's a line item called waste, fraud and abuse. if there were, somebody would have already taken it out of the budget. the reality is it's a much harder task than that, and so, yeah, i think he's making a lot of sense there, that somebody who has grappled with that budget at the level john has -- as john kasich has as chairman of the budget committee, that's valuable experience. other people have experience, too, but that's very valuable

experience when you look at managing a federal budget and figuring out how to get us to balance. it's not just about talking. it's about really knowing those numbers and knowing the programs that need to be changed. >> yeah. congressman, stay right there. we have to take a quick break and pay our bills. we'll be back in just a minute.

welcome back to boulder, colorado. this is a special edition of on

targ target. you can see the cameras here. donald trump over to the side a few feet away. they want to talk about how to make a difference to middle class and poor americans who have not benefitted from the economic recovery as much as the rich. i want to read you an excerpt of the press release that the gop has just put out about the debate tonight. if you're watching it, notice that the most applause came when candidates criticized the media and what they said the unfair questions were. the statement talks about the performance by the cnbc moderators was extremely disappointing and did a disservice to network, candidate, and voters. also that it was deeply unfortunately -- very big attack on the media in general and the

idea that the media have liberal talking points and don't accord the same privileges and courtesies to republican or conservative candidates. that was probably the most popular theme of the night. that is our show for tonight. thank you for joining us. >> every saturday night. >> i lived that character. >> go one on one with america's movers and shakers. >> we will be able to see change. >> gripping... inspiring... entertaining.

no topic off limits. >> 'cause i'm like, "dad, there are hookers in this house". >> exclusive conversations you won't find anywhere else. >> these are very vivid, human stories. >> if you have an agenda with people, you sometimes don't see the truth. >> "talk to al jazeera". saturday, 6:00 eastern. only on al jazeera america. i'm the only person on this stage involved in balancing the federal budget. gop taking each other on while defending their bids for the white house in their third debate deputy dismissed. it. >> it continues to upset me that he threw that student across the room. the. >> the officer in in a