as these may worsen with spiriva. also discuss the medicines you take, even eye drops. side effects may include dry mouth, constipation and trouble passing urine. my doctor said i could be doing more to breathe better and now i am. announcer: ask your doctor about lifestyle changes and once-daily spiriva. >> i'm probably going to lose this battle at least in the short run. health care is america's

greatest growth industry and job creator. it will lead us to prosperity if we let i it. lower tax rates on health care, patients and consumers deregulate insurance and the rest of the industry. stay away from big government trolls. provide free market incentives to grow health care as far and as fast as it can be. it's the new technology, the new microsoft, the new cisco, the new everything, the new general motors from $100. that's the engine of growth. we're doing it all wrong in washington. i'm larry kudlow. dennis kneale, what you got cooking? hi, i'm dennis kneale and i'm selling the hope. obama's health care got especially heated on this show last night. two liberal pillars of the

democratic congress all but accused me of spewing out made up information. i said only 1/3 of the nation's 46 million uninsured actually need insurance but can't afford it and can't get government help. take a look at what happened next. >> i would like to ask -- >> too much of this debate has been dominated by half made up, mostly made up and completely made-up -- >> i resent that. i'm not making that up. we'll find the tape and send it to your office. >> you might not have made it up. that doesn't make it any less wrong, my friend. >> it' a member of congress. he's no more wrong than you. >> you just quoted something that's made up. that's the problem with this debate. >> where did he get this figure that only one third of the -- >> one of your distinguished members of congress came on this show and said of the 45 million uninsured one third can't get it, one third can afford it but won't buy it.

>> who? you won't answer my question? who said that? >> some spirited debate with our elected representatives. and representative andrews has been gentlemanly and kind enough to come on tonight. you asked me what my source was. tonight i have an answer for you, sir, on where i got that information. it was from your colleague, and he's with us tonight. it's representative campbell from california. so did you make it up as your colleague charges? did you make up that only one third of the 46 million americans without insurance actually need it but can't get it? >> no, dennis. and you have seen and report the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan independent congressional budget office gave these figures. they're really not under dispute. you even saw the other night when the president gave his speech before congress that he moved the 45 million, 46 million

uninsured figure is a general figure and he moved it to 30 in order to pull out the illegal alien which is wound up with the outburst and all that kind of debate. so then out of the 45, clearly 15 million, 16 million are illegal aliens. now you have 30 million left. the figures are really not in dispute. the congressional budget office agrees. roughly half of those have the financial capability to buy insurance but they choose not to, either because they're young and indestructible. >> is that cbo or congressional research service. >> i'm sorry, crf. >> so that's congressional research service. would you like to issue an apology now? >> i would like to set the record straight. i believe your statement was two thirds don't want insurance. >> i said one third wants it,

can't. one third could qualify but haven't done so. i said one third choose to go without it. >> i not sure that's what you said. there are nine or ten million eligible for some public plan but do not sign up. that leaves you with 33 million or 34 million people. i don't think that's two thirds that don't want health insurance coverage which is what i thought you said. >> are you still saying, though, the congressman made the data when he said one third is the only one that wants it. >> i'm not saying he did. you did, though. you made the statement that two thirds don't want it. i don't know if it was john campbell, i respect very much but i think -- >> i just said one third was the worst problem. but congressman, help me out

here. >> basically, where i think we are, and i think the point of this robert and see if you can agree here is that roughly 15% of people in america don't have insurance today. >> i agree with that. >> of that 15%, only about a third, or 5% of the total are american citizens who want insurance and either cannot afford it or cannot get it and are not currently eligible. >> what do you say to that, sir? >> don't agree with that.. >> the congressional research service is nonpartisan, funded by congress and they're the ones saying the data. >> they're reporting data from different stoources. as far as people being able to afford it, in my state, the average cost of a family health insurance policy is about $14,000 a year. if you look at the economic profile of the uninsured, they're median income is probably about $31,000 or $32,000 a year. a $14,000 policy is not affordable for somebody with a $32,000 income.

that's just the case. that family would not be eligible for any kind of public prom pram in my state. >> i see what you're doing. you're get into other details. when i'm wrong about something, i believe in the sipowitz defense. i'm right and you're wrong. >> i don't think you're right. you said two thirds don't want it and i don't think that's right. >> it's 45 million. oh, my gosh, we have a crisis on our hands. if it's 15 million, it's far more manageable and maybe we can start to do this in a piecemeal step by step fashion instead of an overhaul for 300 million americans. what do you say? >> that's frankly where a lot of our point is. let's say it's 15 million. let's say it's 20 million.

i'm sure they're not absolutely completely precise. so if it's 5% of the population, 10% of the population. 85% of people in america have health insurance today. 85% of those people are happy with the health insurance and the medical coverage they have. we don't want to mess with that. in order to ensure these 5% to 7%. what we should be looking sat a solution that deals with that 5% to 7% without messing up the good stuff that 80% of americans have. >> i think john just gaye an excellent summary of the bill before the house because that's what it does. >> did it? because there's striking differences i want to talk to you about. >> let's get to what john very well described. if you're in a plan that works for you, you keep it. which describe what is this plan does. if you're in the microsoft plan and you're very happy with it, microsoft's plan qualifies under the minimum standards, and if microsoft wants to stay there, you stay there.

which is br most of that 85% -- medicare doesn't change. most employer-sponsored coverage, 80%, 85% of it doesn't change. i think john really just described what's in the bill. >> you actually proposed an auto plan. i think it's gotten far less ink than i thought it might deserve. let's look at your rival plan and what's just come out from senator baucus. the republican plan lets states form voluntary deals across state lines with other states. the democratic plan doesn't do that. >> that's the major linchpin of our plan. rather than this idea that we need a government plan because we have to have one more choice. there's 1,300 plans right now. private plans in america, but most americans can't access them because of state rules. in california i only have a

choice of a dozen or so. if you allow people to buy plans across state lines -- >> how come the baucus bill doesn't include that? >> i can't speak for senator baucus, but i can speak for our bill. and our bill thinks that's a good idea so we do it and here's how we do it. any insurer who wants to sell a product to anyone anywhere within five years can do so, if they want to sell through an exchange through new jersey and illinois. that's why we do it, we think it's good idea. >> another key difference i wanted to address. >> we need to make sure it's set up properly. >> another key difference is the approach to tax taxs. now, the democratic plan has all these kinds of taxes. an employer that doesn't provide insurance has to pay some kind of payroll.

an employer that does is going to put taxes on medical providers. the republican plan, in fact, congressman campbell, how could you possibly do this? you want to give tax credits worth $2,300 per person, $5700 per family. how are you going to dat and not swell up the deficit? >> the government is spending a ton of money on medical care right now. through medicare, medication, and also through the employer deduction for health care. what this patients choice act that i support basically does sit's directionally opposite from the president's plan. i believe the plan that robert is talking about. rather than having it perpetuating and expaend panding the third party payer system where almost everyone is dependent on either the government or their employer for their health care. >> we're not talking about costs out of our pocket. >> we try to move it the other way so that people are able to buy and control their own health care and do it with -- and take all that money that's being

spent by the government, use it for tax credits to help people pick one of those plans and if they don't like it, move to another one. >> what john said was what senator mccain said in the campaign last year. i think what he said is he wants to make health benefits taxable. so instead of being able to deduct your premiums they'll now be counted towards income. that means someone who teaches school or sells real estate or drives a truck will now be taxes on their health care. >> but they give credit to buy their own. and then, robert better, the point is, if they lose their job or change their job, they don't have to worry because it's not dependent on your employer. >> you said the credit is $5700 per family, i think? is that right? >> that's what i wrote down. it costs $14,000 for a health insurance policy in new jersey.

>> most employers don't pay that. >> your employer pays 85% of your health care cost, the premium. the average in the country is between 80 and 85. what does the truck driver making $35,000 a year and has two kids do with this $5700 credit when he needs another what would it be $9,000 or so to pay his bill. what does he do? >> first of all, the credit changes as your income goes down, it gets larger. as your income goes up it gets smaller. it also takes into account medicare. >> where do you come up with the snun. >> all those place is just said. >> i have a quick question for congressman andrews. where do you get the money for that truck driver? >> here's where we get it. first of all, if he's covered by his employer, he's just covered by his employer, nothing changes. but if he's uninsured or working for a small business, he does

get a subsidy to help him buy health care and we get it by an increase on income tax on couples making more than $350,000 a year, and by reductions in medicare and medicaid that we think make the system more efficient by cutting spending. that's how we do it. >> if we could bring in the "real deal squad." i wanted to start with amanda carpenter at the washingt"the w times." >> i went through the baucus plan. page 195 through 220 include revenue items which to you and i mean taxes. that means if you have a generous health care plan, you're getting taxed. if you own a clinical lab you're getting taxed. if you don't participate in the plan, you're getting fined. >> off different view? i believe we had to say good night to the congressman, is that right, guys?

and my eapologies for not giving them a better sendoff. david, you actually yourself have a personal stake in this fight so go ahead. >> my personally stake is i have that so-called pre-existing condition. i have type-i diabetes. here's the medical bracelet i wear. so say i do lose my job and i'm out there on the insurance market i'm now uninsurable. all those people who say there needs to be an exclusion for pre-existing conditions. i have to say what happens to me? >> no one will insure you at any price at all? >> there's undoubtedly some state-run catastrophic plan maybe that might take me in, but those plans typically cost over $1,000 a month in premiums. i can't afford that, can you? >> well, you know, i turned several million a year as a cnbc anchor. no, i can't afford it either. i know what you're saying. go ahead. >> if i can jump in here. i know someone who's a person of

means. i recently had this person, who's uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition. and he's spent a lot of time trying to investigate resources that would allow him to obtain insurance. and it's not possible. it's not out there. and i think the other important thing to remember is that when we're talking about this cost benefit analysis, we're not talking about a commodity like an ipod or a shoe. we're talking about insurance companies that trade in health. and frankly i have a hard time understanding how we can sort of decide that it's okay to let some people get really, really sick and die simply because some insurance company decides their 400% profit margin is going to be -- >> i have to tell you, tanya, there's no such thing. i could be wrong on this thing, call me crazy. there's no such thing as 400% profit margin. that is just wrong. it's the wrong -- >> 200%. under conservative estimates. >> if something cost $100 and it costs you $1 to make it, the

profit is 99%. there's no 400%. >> people are trying to take virtually the sam exact bill and try to reinvent it and say it's so new. the bill we're looking at now still hurts the middle class with taxes, still has penalties if you don't do what the government says to do and drastically cuts medicare by $500 billion. and still has a price tag of $800-plus billion. >> this is where i fault republicans. what would you do about that pre-existing condition thing? that is a problem where if i have a pre-existing condition, the ""l.a. times"" play leis off david and he can't get insured. what do you do about that? >> if the kbovt wants to get involved and have a special type of insurance for pre-existing conditions only. i'm not saying i'm against that. but when you try to fix it for everybody and it still doesn't fix anything. and you still have something missing in this bill which can help everybody. the price of insurance, especially pre-existing conditions, and that would be tort reform.

>> something radical -- >> everybody gets so hung up about insurance coverage in this whole debate and the real problem with health care is a s that it simply kogss too much. if the government is going to do anything, it should do something to flood the medical supply. we need more doctors, we need more services. that's what will make health care cheaper and ultimately will bring down the cost for insurance companies so they can insure people. >> tanya? >> well, let me -- back to your last point, dennis. it's actually a 400% profit increase over the last ten years. if we have to cut into -- you can call me a socialist for saying that. i don't think that's a value of health is different from the value of an ipod or a computer chip. we're talking about a different commodity. but there's another metric you're considering. that's the number of underinsured americans. in 2007 i think it was, 62% of all bankruptcies were related to

increased -- to medical costs. and of that number, 80% of those people had insurance. so we're talking about millions of people who may not be within that 16% that you were fighting with the legislators about but there's still people who can't afford coverage. >> somebody needs to say to max baucus in this bill here, we don't know really what the free market will do with, for example, pre-existing conditions until we let it be opened up from state to state to state. i can go by in california if i live in new york. i bet you money, dennis. >> how can you say that? >> go ahead, david. how can you say that? we know exactly what the market will do. we've seen the insurers do it. they cherry pick the healthy and young people so they can guarantee the highest -- you eliminate all the sick and oil people. . >> i have to bring in another guest here. igor, what's main point you want to make here?

>> this is a very fiery discussion. thanks for having me. >> that's what we do. >> i can tell. i think the main point is people have tried to get coverage in the private market and they've been denied. about 8 out of 10 who try to get coverage in the individual market can't because it's simply unaffordable. i want to make one more point about medical bankruptcy that somebody else brought up. today, congressman ckusinich asked have you guys heard about medical bankruptcy, 80% was associated to medical costs? and they said nothing. >> so what's? what's your point in all of this? >> the business mod for insurers is intended to attract healthy people, not sick people. and they do everything in their power to keep sick people out. >> that's what insurance is for. it's for healthy people to help them in case they get really

sick. >> but insurance only hurts when you have enough healthy people to outdo the costs of sick people. >> we have 85% of 300 million people insured. that's a lot. >> most are in employer-based coverage where you have a balance. in the large employer market, insurers can't cherry pick. we have to make sure that's the rule across the board. >> why don't we do a plan then zooms up on the people that have freelance insurance, and the 14 million of the uninsured who want it and can't afford it. why don't we rifle shot into those guys instead of sweeping with a broad brush across 300 million americans health care? >> amen. >> that's what these bills do. they would up the number of uninsured to 97%. they give americans a choice. >> that's intellectually dishonest. >> who's eligible for the exchange? only small employees.

>> i'll make a -- >> one at a time. >> i will child proof this with one question to you. name any group in this new government plan that has the biggest brush the world has ever seen to try to fix it for everyone when not everyone needs to be fixed. name anybody that is excluded in the group? unions. >> excluded from what exactly? congressmen and women. that's it. >> they have their own health care system. >> you're trying to fix it for everybody when it doesn't need to be fixed for everybody. >> you know that when you look at the time lines of the exchange, who's eligible. it's on a timetable. and in about two, three years they open the exchange to large employers. and if the government employees want to go into the exchange, they can certainly do that. it opens it up. it's on a timetable. they can go in if they want. >> let's talk to somebody out here. we're getting tired of you, ben. >> i just find it stunning igor,

how come we can't have a frank discussion about bringing down the cost of health care? let's take a thoughtful step by step akroech to equalize the tax treatment between employee and individual health care coverage. let's start with putting stuff online so people can comparison shop pop i would love to put stuff online. the more transparency we have, the better. my problem with equalizing the tax treatment i fear that kind of thing will take the healthy people out of the employer pool and slowly begin unraveling the large employer insurance. >> why should we be locked into a system where i'm dependent on my employer for health care coverage. wouldn't i be better if i was finding the best plan that works for me? >> the problem with shopping around, and this is what you guys have called across state lines. and the baucus bill dusz does allow you to shop across state lines on page 12 of the mark-up, of the mark, rather. but the problem, if you don't have any rules, then insurers can simply circumvent the

consumer rules that are different in every state. that's the problem we saw with the john mccain plan. insurers would be able to sell a policy from a state that doesn't have any -- >> you're getting bogged down in detail and you're boring me. >> i just think amanda made a great case for the public option basically frankly. in terms of removing the murder -- in terms of removing the burden from employers and being so dependent on employer-based coverage? >> a trojan horse for single purveyor -- >> any other insurance coverage, people should be able to go online, price shop, not be dependent on their employer and not have the government get into the market. i just want more services in the market. i want it to become cheaper. >> but let's be honest, we need the market to make sure it regulates insurerers so they're not only catching the healthiest people. that's what they want. that's their model. >> so your proposal is that you have to take x number of people

that are really sick, x number of people that are really obese. and x number of people that are marathon runners. >> i'm talking about a policy. large pools is the only way insurance works. a. >> igor, do you think we should have a single-payer -- >> i don't want that at all. we can have a hybrid system where the private market interacts with the public market. >> the art of insurance is in managing risk. the problem is the business model allows them to define their risk. there's more rix out there if you bring in all the sick people, all the old people, all the people that need insurance. we're talking about a large risk

pool. >> it sounds to me like you want to force insurers to accept you with your pre-existing condition and that makes it harder. >> more over, my ailment is balanced out by some 20-year-old guy that nooz risk whatsoever. >> insurers are at the table, right? the lobby as said they're willing to accept people with pre-existing conditions. they're at the table. why are we arguing? >> they're only going to do that in a mandate. >> i like the co-op proposed in

senator baucus' proposal which are going to do nothing lower cost. right now, this is really -- this is where the rubber hits the road because there are some folks -- i'm not one of them -- but there are some folks who think that insurance, and again, the commodity that is health and wellness is the same as the commodity that is a computer chip. and that's really the fundamental ideological debate. people should trade in health the same way they trade in shoes. >> we've got to wrap here. but david lazarus york uh ear working on some related store tri for the weekend? >> i'm looking at the employer-based health care system which the baucus bill will perpetuate. in world war ii it was a win-win. employers got a great benefit to offer and workers got affordable health care for themselves and their family. now that costs are going through the roof, employers still get the benefit for being conduit for insurance, but workers no longer have their side of the equation. >> you think any employer out

there is happy? >> i have talked to almost every major business group out there. they all say they want to maintain this system. the main reason they want to do it is because they say this is a benefit that allows them to attract and retain the best workers. >> in the same way that employers are better at keeping costs down, we consumers would keep costs down if it came more out of our own pocket. thank you very much for being here. we are just getting started toe night, guys on "cnbc reports." later tonight, dow 10,000. we're not there yet, but we could be just one good day away. also tonight, a big twist for a former hero of capitalism. and aig ceo being told n-o. this is "cnbc reports."

we're back with bulls and blares in quandary. money usually pulls out of one and into another.

we asked, which one may be headed for a tumble. could someone toss me

an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go. eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing some of the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient jet engines... to building more wind turbines than anyone in the country... the people of ge are working together... creating innovation today for america's tomorrow. thanks!

no problem! >> an extraordinary thing is happening in the market. money flows out of one asset class and into another. yet lately, it seems like everything is up, way up. some experts say something has got to give. something has got to take a

tumble. what's it going to be boys? first, guys. let me give you a few key numberser all right? first let's start with stocks. stocks are up 57% since the lows of march 9, right? but look at this. oil is up, too. boom. it's up 54% since early march. and gold is up 10% in the same time frame. even treasuries, guys, demand and prices should have plunged now that we're past this crisis of a year ago. and given that, we've had a huge increase in the supply of t-bills. when supply goes up, prices fall. and the yield on the bonds, it should be way, way high. yet look at this. ten-year treasury bonds are actually priced higher now than they were last october in the thick of the lehman brothers catastrophe. the demand is so high the ten-year bond yields now are actually lore than they were in the panic. the yields are down 63 basis points in that time. the ten-year paying a return of

3.4%. last october, at a time of huge fare, the yield was over 4%. that means prices of treasuries are going up. even the most abused and battered asset of all, real estate, showing science of life. look at the reit index. it has doubled since its low. which asset class is due for a tumble? >> i say stocks. i think the broad based stock move is overly optimistic. we need to be a little more picky as to where we go from here. i like real estate. it's showing itself. >> tell us why he's wrong. >> i believe he's wrong because the overall trend that we're seeing show s shows very, very support for stocks. you look at the at of cash

relative to mark evaluations, and it's still extremely high. so people are buy into that rally. >> what about the survey, dennis, from the august survey which, you know, i e-mailed to you. i was shocked because what they found was that mutual funds have the lowest level of cash, the highest level of stock since july 2007. i remember talking about these high cash levels but yet according to all the surveys, all the cash is in the system? >> who else? >> look at the money that was taken out since last november. tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars that has not been put back to those managers to reinvest. >> scott -- >> first of all, the money that was taken out back when the market had its swoon was probably mechanically soldout because those are people that couldn't handle their

portfolios. those were guys that were on margin. those were institutions that were overleveraged. so that money might not be dom coming back. as far as new inflows coming in, a lot of it is from the restale investor. that supports the thesis that people are fom coming back due to excitement. >> i just think we're going to be in the same up trend. you're going to have to withstand a 3% to 4% correction. but one of these times is going to happen it's going to wind up being more. >> what asset class is going down. they can't all stay up forever. >> the scenario you're

describing is rather than having a correction in september and october, we could, in fact, have a melt-up. there's no incentive to being in cash right now. investors have seen this market move. as you point out, close to $4 trillion on the sidelines. that money is going to start flowing in, which is going to exacerbate this whole move to the upside. commodities continue to be on fire. >> the mining companies have done so much better than the spot price of oil. >> i want to hear each one of you pick scott, give us one. the next four to eight weeks. >> i don't think you need to be in oil long. i think you can be in gold. gold can continue higher. >> what do you get out of for the next four to eight weeks? >> run from treasuries.

>> okay, quickly. what do you bail? >> i'm with tom. you've got to short treasuries right now. >> bob phillips, you're getting out of stocks, right? >> no, i'm not. my high yield bonds. >> okay. and steve you're going to get out of stocks? >> i'm going to get out of stock, yes. guys, i'm sorry, i have to wrap. we're under real time constraints. to all you folks out there in tv land, e-mail me at cnbcreports@cnbc.com. a lot more tonight. another ceo and a plane in the doghouse. the aig ceo is learning the word no. and we have a recall alert. you're watching cnbc. first in business worldwide.

you see the clock there? that means it's time for "dennis in a minute." four stories, 60 seconds. tonight, all about the same thing. science of growth. fedex, early next year, raising prices almost 6 prgs.

you can't push through a price increase if demand for services is moribund. next, kodak. raising $700 billion in a new debt offering by kkr which could take a 20% stake. only months ago a struggling old giant in a dying industry could never have raised new debt. third story, toyota, plot plothing a prisonen bll dollar blitz in advertising and market. a huge sum. and toyota wouldn't be doing it if it were bracing for a big new crisis in the u.s. economy. fourth and final story, barclays raising $12.3 billion buying up assets. the same stuff that almost poisoned the entire economy just a year ago. next up, tonight's hero of capital with a twist. and big trouble for aig's ceo. no jet for you, sir.

goodwrench... we roll out the blue carpet for drivers of these great gm brands. we can do the small things, the big things, just about everything... right inside your gm dealership. find out more at goodwrench.com.

welcome to progressive.com. you must be looking for motorcycle insurance. you're good. thanks. so is our bike insurance. all the coverage you need at a great price. hold on, cowboy. cool. i'm not done -- for less than a dollar a month, you also get 24/7 roadside assistance. right on. yeah, vroom-vroom! sounds like you ran a 500. more like a 900 v-twin.

excuse me. well, you're excused. the right insurance for your ride. now, that's progressive. call or click today. gm drivers.. it's goodwrench & go time. three great services: all in one place. all at one time. all for one price for most gm vehicles. but it's only for a limited time. at participating gm dealers.

a sad and somber day. i say sad day because tonight i've got to rescind the hero award i had just gwynn to somebody a week ago. a new ceo, a guy i praised at outspoken, refleshingly blunt. a guy that sticks up for his people and stands up to the politicians. -robert benmosche. but i now rescind, retract and renege on that hero assignment because news broke today that he's miffed he can't use aig's corporate jet for personal travel. i am a defender of wall street and i think way too much static has been raised over complaints about private jets at public companies. but if a company wants to give its ceo a perk like that for

company and personal travel, go for it. but when a firm like aig fails at risk management, almost brings down the financial system and sucks up $180 billion in federal bailout cash and barely clings to life, then maybe you should sell the company jet altogether and buy business class and you most definitely don't get a private jet for personal purposes. . i cannot believe the aig chief had the temerity and tone deafness to even bring it on. shame on you. aig pays benmosche an annual salary of $70 million. let's debate it. frank, what do you think about the corporate jet thing here? and what do you think about the latest move with aig? >> well, you know something, it certainly flies in the face of conventional wisdom. you know, robert benmosche is a

great ceo. honestly, his work as well as the work of the other guys running these bailout diversified financials have their work cut out for them. they're going to earn every single cent they make. but as far as affinity benefits like corporate jets or automobiles or things like that, one really has to wonder what is going through their minds when they say i want to come to the government and get a multibillion dollar bailout and then at the same time not want to set the example and walk the talk. the issue is a joke. planes are small things. these are tiny expenses. this is hardly even wor sthi of discussion. >> oh, this is not a tiny expense at all. this is something that could add up to a lot of money. >> aig failed because of massive gambling. it didn't fail because of use of corporate jets. >> he's right about that.

i don't think -- the federal government should never have bailed out aig. >> wait a minute. given the bailout, shouldn't -- at this point, shouldn't aig be pushing back. shouldn't the ceo be willing to give up personal travel on the corporate jet? >> if somebody is going to go to the bank and -- shouldn't the ceo be willing to give up personal travel on the corporate jet when -- >> if somebody is going to go to the bank and ask for a big loan, and you're going to go to the bank and say, hey, i'm broke and i want a couple million dollars you're not going to take the couple million dollars and drive up in a ferrari because it's going to upset your banker. >> treasury shouldn't use t.a.r.p. as an excuse. we're reaching a point -- i would have never done what bernanke did in terms of giving money to ai kbchlt. we are where we are. aig failed because it became a house of bookies that was doing -- they call it credit default swaps they could have been betting on the new england

patriots or the steelers. >> let me delineate this. frank, here's the thing. do you have a problem, frank, when the ceo of a company that's not a government bailout company when it uses the corporate jet for private purposes? i think that's a perk and if the board wants to give it to them, fine, let them? >> if the company is healthy, there are certainly reasons for -- if the aircraft is over half full and the ceo or the ceo's family or any other executive's family is traveling with them and that aircraft is being used for business use primarily that's fine. but what we're talking about here is not how aig got itself into the bind or any of these other financial companies. this is just about setting example. >> where i think you're wrong is the ceo is like a president when you can't make a appropriate division between personal and corporate. it would be one thing if he said i want to use corporate funds for my daughter's anniversary party. this is travel.

a ceo has to be anywhere at any time. airplanes are stupid issues. symbolic issues that people focus on. >> it's not stupid if it's for business or personal use. the seg this. i have six and a half year old boys, if they come to me and they've been bad boys i'm not going to give them an ice cream cone and they are not going to ask their dad for it. on the other hand we shouldn't be using corporate jets for personal use if our companies are in trouble. >> but jack, notice, again, with the parental finger-wagging attitude, likening corporate chieftons to 6-year-old twin boys. >> everything is becoming an excuse for the federal government to get its claws into more and more and more. i opposed t.a.r.p. when bernanke on this very air in october, when bernanke came out that monday morning with $80 billion for aig i fought it. these were the kinds of things i think that could have been reasonably foreseen. we're only in this fix because the federal government involved

with wall street. >> got to bail. thank you very much, jack. nice job. and time for tonight's parting shot. $2 trillion! that's the equivalent of 2,000 billionaires. and that's how much new household wealth was created in the second quarter, before the great recession ahad even ended. $2 trillion. that gives me hope. it shows how the american economy can be when it rebounds and it is rebounding. look at news out, jobless claims lower. august housing starts up. that $2 trillion rise is the first increase in household wealth in nine quarters. it shows that wealth grew at a 17% annual rate and the quarter ended on march 30th, upbeat grace notes are buried in the fed's flow of funds report. wealth in stocks grew by more than $1 trillion in the second quarter. mutual funds and pensions were up, too. and we even had a rise in real

estate. that most abused an abandoned asset up $139 billion and household debt actually fell. it's now down four quarters in a row. these are hopeful signs, folks. look at this first chart, how america's wealth fell and rebounded in the first and second quarters. see the slope upturn, that's encouraging. but look at this second chart. $13.9 trillion, that's how much household wealth plunged from its peak at $64 trillion in late '07 to the end of the quarter of this year. so far ought of that almost $14 trillion we've made back only $2 trillion. we're at > marijuana is the most $53.1 trillion in worth. that shows you how far we have to go to come back. so let's get to work. we'll be back in two minutes. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day,

so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. announcer: cialis for daily use or 36-hour cialis. ask your doctor if cialis is right for you, so when the moment is right, you can be ready.

our reports back tomorrow at 8:00 and 8:30. watch "options action." good night, everybody. thanks for being with us. ♪ look at this man ♪ so blessed with inspiration ♪ ♪ i don't know much ♪ but i know i love you

♪ and that may be ♪ all i need ♪ to know (announcer) customers love ge aircraft engines almost as much as we love making them. innovation today for america's tomorrow. this might not be the best time to sell a home. but we just can't wait for the market to heat up. (woman) need to sell? re/max agents have the experience to get the job done. nobody sells more real estate than re/max. where do you want to be?