hobbled by all the debt. then they go head to head. i think hewlett-packard will take it. buy the stock. there is always a bull market somewhere. i promise to find it for you on "mad money." i'm jim cramer and i will see you tomorrow. less than five days to go before the deadline, and the obama care website nowhere near ready. insurance companies still have no way to be sure who is really enrolled. total enrollment numbers are still woefully low. and can you say death panels? yeah, they are back. president obama laughed off even the suggestion of them, but respected political reporter and co-author of "the game change" best-seller mark halperin is talking about them now, and he's going to join us tonight. and we know the deal with iran is bad. we know the obama team is still defending it, but what does israel do now? we're about to ask a top israeli diplomat if his nation will strike and strike soon. all the stories and more coming

up on "the kudlow report" starting now. good evening. it's 7:00 p.m. eastern time, 4:00 p.m. pacific. i'm michelle caruso-cabrera in for larry kudlow tonight. this is "the kudlow report." the newest enrollment numbers for obama care are out, 229,964. that is the state exchanges and also the latest number from health and human services on the federal exchanges. that's it. less than 230,000. colorado has signed up only 6,000 people so far. that's barely half of their worst case estimate was, and that comes despite, take a look at your screen, remember this, the aggressive and embarrassing ad campaign that was at times overtly sexual, this brosurance ad and this one from the website, do you got insurance.com where a girl hopes this guy is as easy to get as her birth control s.not working

for you, colorado. the desperation continues. organization for america is telling supporting to harangue their friends and family about obama care at the thoifg table and the aarp wants their members to nag their children into signing up for obama care. this ad says i don't mind being the reason i got health insurance. you're the reason i drink wine out of a box. i don't get it. all right. joining us now. sean spicer with the republican national committee and we'll be joined by dnc communications director. good to have you here. >> thanks, michelle. great to be with you. >> i was going to ask mo, am i being too negative i? i think you think i'm probably not. i think you sounded off a pretty good list of what's going on right now. it's the state of play. one thing that's being overlooked, not just the number of people signing up, because what we're finding out day after day is the front end glitches are now exposing some back end glitches meaning as the insurers

go in to find out who has signed up for their insurance plan, they are not getting the information they need so you, the consumer, are going to the website, signing up for picking the plan, not that many of them, by the way, according to the numbers that you're putting out there, but then when the insurance companies get that information, it's incomplete. it's wrong, and this is going to lead to even more widespread problems as people are supposed to be rolling into these plans january 1st. >> what are the implications of that in the insurance companies don't know and, therefore, due town certainty they raise prices or they what? >> well, i think the number one concern that we have is the individuals. you're being told you're going to pay a fine, that your insurance is going to end as you know it at the end of december and january 1st you're supposed to be enrolled in these new programs. the problem is when you go to actually utilize these new programs, you make a doctor's appointment, you get into an accident, if you will, or have to go see a doctor ant insurance isn't there on the back end because it never ever was processed correctly, that's going to be absolutely catastrophic.

>> somebody is not getting paid for the services, or you can't get the services that you thought you had. >> yeah, or you frankly get denied, or you get a big bill that says, hey, we never actually confirmed that you were enrolled. here's the tab. >> all right. let's talk more also about the website. the sign-up process seems to be improving, but now you're talking about the back end. it's sending the consumer information to insurers. that's a big problem. according to the "washington post" the reports are riddled with errors such as listing a spouse as a child. some records are duplicated. other enrollments are lost entirely, and these are for plans that are supposed to start on january 1st and this is from a website that some reports indicate cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. our next guest knows a thing or two about the exchanges. here's the president of go health, a private insurance exchange. from what i understand, mr. cruz, you are the first private insurance health care exchange that's actually been able to connect to

healthcare.gov and people who go to your website are able to sign up for the insurance. is that correct? >> yeah, that's correct. at gohealth.com you can go online, shop, find the plan you want and our licensed agents will help you complete your application online. >> i understand it was pretty difficult to get set up because just communicating with the government-run website was difficult? >> yeah. you know, there's been challenges, that everybody has obviously seen. fortunately lots of progress has been made on the government side in the past couple of weeks or month, and they have been able to fix some major blocking issues that were preventing us from completing enrollments. last week they fixed them, and starting this week we've got them up and running and we're ready to go. >> how many are you doing so far? >> you know, i don't know. just did it yesterday. been kind of a flurry. lots of people found out that we're the only place to go to complete the enrollment so we're obviously slammed right now with

people calling in and signing up. >> you're seeing heavy demand? >> we are seeing heavy demand, yes, we have been since october 1st. what we've been doing up until now is taking appointments and telling people we'll call them back when we with complete the enrollment so we're in the beginning phases of calling everybody back right now. >> when you read about how they decided how to do healthcare.gov, it's become pretty clear, we learned they didn't do a bidding process for building the website. it was an emergency procurement. it was because they thought they could do it themselves. would anybody in their right mind think that this arm of the government had the ability to build a website as dramatically big as this? >> i don't know exactly what capabilities they have. for me this is my first time interacting directly with the i.t. staff in this branch of the government. can i tell you they have been very cooperative and very communicative with us, but i think it's just a project

project that was a very, very large undertaking and needed to be done in a short amount of time and it's something that might have been an impossibility. >> had to be done in a short amount of time because it took so long for them to start it. the bill was passed a long time ago and getting the website constructed was delayed until this past summer. >> that's correct. that's what i understand. i don't know the details of why. knowing that it start i think august 1st, that seems like just a massive undertaking. >> you run an i.t., you run a website, how long should they have allotted for getting this thing up and runing? >> i would have liked over a year in an ideal situation. if you know you have it in a couple years in advance you start building. the issue is you've got to bring together an entire industry, right? all kinds of different technologies and all kinds of different companies and then in this situation they are integrating with various database on the back end of the

federal government which adds more complexity. so obviously the more time the better. >> sean spicer, would more time have helped, or is it that -- i mean, is an arm of the government ever going to be good at doing this kind of big, big project and program? >> no. i think this is something that we warned about from the beginning. we were talking about one-sixth of the entire u.s. government being taken over by this. i don't think it's a matter of time. the entire program was flawed from the get-go. the notion that the government would come in and try to tell people what -- you know, what kind of insurance they would get and regulate this. this is not something best left to the government. it's something from a republican standpoint we were making that very clear from the beginning. the difference, too, the bigger issue, one of the things that keeps getting forgotten in the debate is when the democrats did this, they rush it had through. they did not want nor welcome any republican support. neither chamber had any republican votes. in fact, they rushed it through the senate, as people may recall. senator scott brown was elected to fulfill the seat, they rushed

the vote so he won't be able to do it and now they are concerned that republicans are saying you should work with us to fix it. they didn't want republican input when they were building it and they didn't care about it during the time and now they are concerned about republican input afterwards. i think that's a little disingenuous because we were warning at the time this was not a good idea. it was not going to work the way it was supposed to and here we are. >> brandon, would you have wanted to bid on the ability to do this website if it had ever come up? >> yeah. i think we definitely would have been interested in doing at least parts of the website. there's maybe some stuff that would be better left to either the inteernl i.t. staff at the federal government or maybe another contractors, but there's definitely parts we could have done a very good job on. >> but you just never got the opportunity? >> right. >> i would say the one big thing, and i think brandon would acknowledge this, any private company would never have -- he seems to have alluded to it, would never have allowed something this important and this big a priority in terms of what this administration said or created in terms of how big

this -- this was going to be of an issue for this and leaving it to the last second, not doing that, really calls into question how prepared they were in the first place to handle this. >> yeah. >> all right. gentlemen, thank you so much. brandon and sean, and we regret we couldn't work out technical problems with mo from the democratic national committee. all right. now we have this late-breaking story from the irs. remember the agency admits that it was unfairly targeted right wing political groups for more than three years. now, it wants those practices that they were doing to be made legal. we have the details coming up. and then later sarah palin warned us about death panels, and president obama ridiculed her, but who is laughing now? one of washington's most respected reporters has resurrected the issue. he's going to join us just a little bit later. and don't forget free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. "the kudlow report" is coming right back.

they were at the heart of this summer's irs targeting scandal, and today the obama administration is again taking aim at the tea party, conservative groups and other non-profits. the treasury department just released a proposal for strict new rules which would keep non-profits like karl rove's

crossroads gps from getting a tax exemption, so is the obama team simply trying to make the illegal actions of its own irs now legal? here is jay seculo, chief counsel for the american center for law and justice. good to have you here, sir. >> thanks for having me. >> i know you're a lawyer and pretend you're not one tonight. what are they trying to do here? >> well, you know, even as a lawyer i'll explain it. it's real simple. the government is trying to engage in basically a post-hoc justification for their illegal conduct. they are trying to do what they did illegally, which they acknowledged was illegal targeting of the group and trying through the regulatory process which appears to be this administration's specialty to make it now legal what they did. it's not going to work. in fact, it really shows you the duplicity of the agency here that they would even propose this in the middle, michelle, in the middle of litigation, so there is litigation pending, and they changed the rules, and they

want those rules to apply retroactive, and frank lit new rules violate the first amend sglnt does it say retroactively? >> yeah. remember, our clients' tax exemptions are still pending. they have not been granted, so you talk about a lot of the organizations, some of the ones you mentioned have not been granted exempt status yet. this is an attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game, and the court is going to see right through it, and frankly if there's enough outrage and i believe there's going to be, i don't think the irs will be able to pull this one o.this is a sleight of hand move by the acting commissioner or the new commissioner. it's also a sleight of hand move by the administration to try to change the nature of the debate by basically saying this. we are now changing all of the rules the 01c-4 activity including you that have been pending now in court for six months but applications have been pending for three years, and they don't -- they should not be able to get away with

this. >> give me an example of activity that would now be prohibited or would now deny somebody that status. >> well, for instance, and this is the thing that has meet most concerned. one of the great things that these c-4 groups whether they are right, left or center is get out vote efforts, get people to participate in the election process. that always deemed to be part of social welfare. that was part of helping the community to get people to exercise their right to vote. now the irs is saying, no. you can do that, but that counts against what you're allowed to do to such a significant extent that groups that focus on getting out vote, regardless of the party, getting out the vote efforts, are now going to run up against this artificial barrier that the irs is trying to put into regulation. >> for example, you couldn't put out paperwork or any kind of pamphlets 30 to 60 days before an election if it included an candidate's photo? >> yeah. that's basically -- they are trying to take that -- this is what is so bizarre. they are trying to take that from the campaign finance laws

that were already declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, these 30 and 60-day outprovisions. so they are taking law that's already been struck as unconstitutional, and by the way the court is more inclined to do that now than ever before to strike these as unconstitutional and putting those laws declared unconstitutional in these laws. the whole thing is bizarre to say the least and incorrect as a matter of law and should not be allowed. >> somebody from the other side is going to say, listen, i know that you're supposedly trying to push the social welfare, right, that's the whole idea behind the 501 c-4s, but the minute that you're putting candidate's photo, whether it's a democrat or republican, she horhe or whoever, on this pamphlet, it obviously becomes something political, and you could argue your candidate you think is better for the social welfare, but, still, it's ultimately political, no? >> here's the problem with that argument, which is the argument that they are going to make. the problem is for 40 years, over 40 years, the irs has had a standard that they have applied to all these groups that are left of center that have been

recognized and granted exempt status, that it can't be more than basically 50% of the activity, and they allowed voter registration, allowed all these voters registration including get out the vote efforts and score cards and now they want to change the rules going forward so for the last 40 and 50 years what was good enough for the naacp legal defense fund and all these other groups, which is fine, i believe they should get the exemptions, not good for groups that are conservatives and you shouldn't be able to undo 40 years of precedent and certainly not in the middle of federal litigation which is the outrage in all of this two days before thanksgiving, like nobody is going to notice they are doing this, right. >> exactly. what do you say when people say this stuff shouldn't be tax-exempt period? >> well, then change the tax law but don't let the government do it through a regulatory process and congress isn't going to change it so what the administration is doing in so many areas, that's why they wanted to stack the d.c. court

of appeals with additional judges that are not needed, the regulatory cases, the challenges to these regulations, come through the d.c. court of appeals. this administration is creating law through regulation, and they are not supposed to be doing that. >> jay kekulow, thanks so much for joining us. >> thank for having me. >> not going to be first time that the administration tries to do that, right? how do casinos really make money? is it the celine dion shows and the 9.99 all you can eat buffet or will online gambling sites bring in the cash? that's the debate raging from vegas to atlantic city to wall street. cnbc's seema mody has that story and more next. hi honey, did you get the toaster cozy?

yep. got all the cozies. [ grandma ] with new fedex one rate, i could fill a box and ship it for one flat rate. so i knit until it was full. you'd be crazy not to. is that nana? [ male announcer ] fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.

online gambling launches in new jersey today. cnbc's seema mody joins us with that story and more. hi, seema. >> hi, michelle. six casinos offering online gambling in new jersey starting today. all the sites have to be affiliated with brick and mortar casinos based in atlantic city. now the debate is whether the online sites will help the casino companies by bringing in extra revenue, or will they kill the casinos because it's so much easier to just play from your couch? place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. >> so i don't understand. if i'm in texas, can i not access this website? >> i believe you're not allowed to. they have a gps tracker, and they also track your i.p. address. you've got to be in new jersey. >> the gps, what, through your phone?

>> i believe so. that's what i'm hearing from our producer. >> wow, that is so weird, okay. >> very technologically advanced, right? >> a little creepy big brotherish, too. >> keep going. >> i agree. philadelphia is about to become the first city to ban the printing of 3-d guns. it might seem crazy, but working guns can be made using a 3-d printer, so the city is in the process of passing a law to prevent guns and parts of a gun from being made by anyone other than licensed gunmakers. i think that's a safe thing to do here. you don't want the wrong person getting the formula or the code to printing a 3-d gun. >> yeah, but you do it then through licensing and things like that or making sure you're going through a screening process, necessarily. >> true. >> have you tried to buy a 3-d printer? they are expensive. >> i want to know if that's going to be a hot thing to buy. >> i think mattel or somebody has them for little kids. but no gun. >> exactly. >> here's another story. time warner cable seems to be in

hot demand. the "wall street journal" reporting cox communications is considering a bid for time warner. the stock was a big gainner today's session. there's already been speculation that charter communications and comcast are interested as well. we should note comcast is the parent company of this network. >> that's why i want them to get the company because right now i have time warner and then i would get a really big discount on my cable if comcast buys it. anybody in new york city, right? >> of course. >> wouldn't you like -- >> west village. >> wouldn't you like cheaper cable? >> i would love it. >> okay. >> lastly, i want to point this out, really interesting. not just the stock market hitting new highs. bitcoin, the digital currency hitting an all-time high today after a very volatile week of trading. shares of bitcoin now above $960. a lot of investors watching to see if it will break $1,000. keep in mind bitcoin wasn't even around two or three years ago. it was worth just a couple of bucks last year, so imagine if you had bought into the craze or

into this fad or asset class, whatever it may be back then and now you're sitting at $960. >> i am fascinated by bitcoin. >> so am i. >> i love it. i love it conceptually. love the concept of privacy. what i also think makes it so great is you have huge proponents on one side, like branson, and on the other side there's such skepticism. i mean, the intellectual debate about bitcoin has bigger than the 1,000 bucks it might hit. >> highly controversial. even venture capitalists like fred wilson, widely respected in silicon valley, a backer of bitcoin but you don't have the faith of the government backing this currency. who knows. >> in the old days -- >> buying into a mathematical formula. >> but our currency a mathematical formula, happens to be derived by ben bernanke and company, just a different set of central bankers somewhere who are deciding it. there's a time when people said, well, it's not backed by a currency, not backed by a

precious metal so, therefore, it's not legitimate so maybe it's a whole evolution in the discussion. >> that's why it seems like it's the smart silicon valley investor who is really bullish behind this digital currency because they feel like it's the future of currencies. >> on dotcom, people go crazy for it. >> oh, yeah, absolutely. >> good to sigh, seema. thank you. >> good roundup. death panels, any phrase that created as much controversy as that during the debate over obama care in the 2012 election? everyone who laughed at idea stopped laughing a bit today when one of washington's most respected political journalists brought the term back to life. mark halperin is with us next. hi honey, did you get the toaster cozy?

yep. got all the cozies. [ grandma ] with new fedex one rate, i could fill a box and ship it for one flat rate. so i knit until it was full. you'd be crazy not to. is that nana? [ male announcer ] fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping th the reliability of fedex.

so you believe that there will be rationing aka death panels? >> built into the plan. it's not like -- it's not like a gas or like a judgment. that's going to be part of how costs are controlled. >> yeah. >> but i'll say something else about that issue which is we do need to do some of that in this country because we can't afford to spend so much on end of life care, a very high percentage of our health care spending is for a very small number of people in the last stages of their life. i'm not saying that the system shouldn't allow that, but there's too much costs. judgments have to be made. >> that was now mark halperin who set off a firestorm earlier

today as he discussed as you heard the so-called death panels in obama care. it sounded like he said there were indeed provisions for deciding which patients would keep the health care in obama care as a health care mechanism and now he's joining us to clarify those remarks. >> joining us now is mark halperin, author of "double down," and also with us is former health and human services assistant secretary ben sassy and now republican candidate for senate in nebraska and dr. scott gotlieb of the american enterprise institute. gentlemen, thanks for being here. mark, let me start with you. you want to clarify. what exactly did you mean by what you said? >> well, i didn't use the word death panels and i wouldn't. i think it's a loaded phrase. i'm not sure exactly what people mean by it but the question i was asked was called rationing. that's what i'm keying off. three things are pretty clear. a lot of provisions in the affordable care act were not debated at the time of passage, not debated in the context of

the campaign and because the program has gotten off to a bad start there's going to be a lot of controversies as these things are discussed. two, the independent payment advisory board, which is a big part of the affordable care act that is central to cost control is something that hasn't been debated in a real way and that those decisions that are made by that board are going to lead to what i think could be described perfectly reasonably as rationing. again, as i said, that's built into the system. there's going to be an effort to control costs. now the law says it's not going to affect individuals, but only providers, but i think the way the market works it's pretty clear and i'm not alone in this view and it's also going to affect individuals eventually. as i said in the clip you played, not every decision about health care relates to end of life decisions but that's such an extraordinarily large part of the health care costs this country spends. there should be a big debate and when i said it was being built in, death panels weren't built in, built into the system is an effort to control costs done by a government board that's not been debated enough. >> let's give some people

statistics. 25% of medicare spending goes to the last year of life. end of life care is absolutely a disproportionate amount of medicare spending relative to the number of people, and i think people on both sides of the aisle agree there's some kind of problem there. the question is how do you fix it? you talked about rationing, mark. what i find frustrating about this discussion is the following. we all ration. rationing will happen. i have a lot more wants than the means i have to fulfill them, right? every single day we make choices in our life. the question isn't will there be rationing. the question is who is going to do the rationing? am i putting that correctly in your mind, mark? >> 100%. look, i believe the united states shouldn't be the only industrialized democracy on the planet that doesn't have universal health care. the aspirations of the law are great, but if you're going to have huge cuts, and this is going to require huge cuts, again, this isn't my sort of making something up. when i was covering the passage of the law, white house

officials said this is central to the law, controlling costs, so choices are going to be made. a lot of americans will be fine with the government board make the decision, but a lot of people i think will not be, and we need that debate in this country, not just about whether we need rationing, because as you say we're going to have it but what should the mechanism be and as i said that's built into the law. i didn't say death panels were built into the law and didn't mean that. should have clarified that. >> the interviewer used those words. >> dr. gotlieb, explain the independent payment advisory boards. this isn't a group of people saying aren't saying aunty emme will get this but uncle joe will not. what are they supposed to do? what decisions will they make? >> broad coverage decisions around new technology. >> around new technology. >> also going to impose price controls on new technology and make determinations about who can get access to what in certain circumstances.

>> i think it's going to be by co-morbidity. >> what is that? >> one of the conditions you might suffer from. >> that's certainly true of any natural coverage, absolutely and takes away flexibility from patients and providers. >> seth, was there a better with a way to do this? >> we're talking about such big issues that i hesitate to make the joke. we just go by sass at my house. i disagree with mark's policy

judgment, but i think his analysis is right. >> right. >> that we didn't have a real debate about this in 2009-2010. to quote then speaker nancy pelosi we had to pass a 2,300-page law that the lawmakers hadn't read. there's, of course, a better way to do government than this. >> i have seen one very, very thoughtful piece, and it was a long time ago, either from cato, heritage, american enterprise, usual suspects of the stuff that i like to read, right, and this very brave individual wrote the following. he said long before there was a lot of insurance in the world, when you got to the end of life, individuals, families sat in a room with the elderly person, and i get almost emotional talking about this and said, okay, the longer we're here, where do we want aunty emme to be at the end of life, in the hospital, at home and aunty also knew that every day that she stayed longer was less money that she left to her children, was very, very costly, and so individuals made those very

painful choices. is that the way to go because you know what the risk is? that means liberals will say, well, the live can live much longer than the poor, right. jump ball, anybody weigh in on that? >> i'll jump. in at the end of the day we're going to have cost controls. the question is whether the cost controls come from the center in a one-size-fits-all way or they come from the periphery when families and communities and providers are engaged in those decisions, and the one size fits all model doesn't work well, and one of the things the media hasn't been focused on or noticed since last week with the filibuster reform issues in the senate is the ipaipab hasn't be functioning because there's not commissioners appointed and ultimately confirmed. what's going to come real fast now is a consolidation of power around that ipab and to go back to mark's opening point in your segment. the american people didn't understand this is some of what was happening in the congress in 2009, 2010.

centralizing more of these decisions takes away flexibility and innovation. >> i think when we talk about that last year of life, it's going to be very hard to address that last year of the life and the costs that get incurred there because it's often a patient that has multiple bouts of pneumonia and heart failure, making a decision about which admission you're not going to treat the patient or which episode of heart failure shouldn't you apply antibiotics. that's impossible to do. we're not talking about patients clearly terminal and making decisions to sort of impose extraordinary measures. most patients these days do not resuscitate and go through those measures, patients with chronic issues at the end of life. very hard to predict. >> mark, you get the last word. >> these are such personal decisions. i wasn't advocating that the board is the best idea, but the board is the law, and because the affordable care act has gotten off to such a slow and court version start, because it was passed with democratic-only votes it will be harder for the country to come together to

decide how should this work. should it be altered at all and it is as i said in the interview it is currently as it is to help control costs and that will have effects on individuals even though the law says it won't. that's the way the market will work almost certainly. >> gentlemen, thanks very much. very tough discussion. thought you all did great. mark halperin's new book "double down" is available now. i highly recommend it. are you ready for the big storm hitting the east coast? are the big retailers set for black friday? we'll talk retail stocks and more just ahead. (vo) you are a business pro. maestro of project management. baron of the build-out. you need a permit... to be this awesome. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...

and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. (aaron) purrrfect. (vo) meee-ow, business pro. meee-ow. go national. go like a pro. just by talking to a helmet. it grabbed the patient's record before we even picked him up. it found out the doctor we needed was at st. anne's. wiggle your toes. [ driver ] and it got his okay on treatment from miles away. it even pulled strings with the stoplights. my ambulance talks with smoke alarms and pilots and stadiums. but, of course, it's a good listener too. [ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everything works like never before.

[ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so you can see like right here i can just... you know, check my policy here, add a car, ah speak to customer service, check on a claim...you know, all with the ah, tap of my geico app. oh, that's so cool. well, i would disagree with you but, ah, that would make me a liar. no dude, you're on the jumbotron! whoa. ah...yeah, pretty much walked into that one. geico anywhere anytime. just a tap away on the geico app.

big winter storm boreus is brewing. it's a monster and moving this way. how will it impact your thanksgiving travel plans and your shopping plans? the weather channel's paul goodloe joins us now with the details. hey, paul. >> reporter: hey, michelle. a huge storm. the upper level low is pushing out of texas right now, but it's also bringing snow already to parts of the northeast and new england and has a severe weather side as well. in the red a tornado watch from 1:00 a.m. in georgia. lots of gusty wind and lightning as well.

the rain stretches into south florida as well. so far today two reports of tornadoes in the florida panhandle. meanwhile the mid-atlantic, may be a rainy event. d.c., philly, new york, about, all rain for this event, but the interi interior, that's where we have mix tower and the concern right now is the freezing rain setting up in central p.a. and pushing into central new york. that's a concern for travelers. even into tomorrow morning, but this is all snow. syracuse, buffalo, erise, even cleveland seeing snow with this. more rain on your wednesday and a big travel day. rain and clouds could be delaying the aircraft but also wet roadways. again all rain, even into maine, but freezing rain continues tomorrow. on the back side this is all snow. not perhaps talking a dusting, a real winter storm dumping of snow. that will linger into thursday. the snow will, because that rain, well, once the front presses on by, the cold air comes in and the wind clears you out. boston, new york, d.c., even down to the southeast, but it will be a lot colder for your

thanksgiving and friday as well. travel concerns is where the snow is still fly, especially downwind of the great lakes. traveling i-90 across the great lakes. that's where the heavy snow will be. how much, well, like christmas, how about a white thanksgiving. parts of northwestern p.a. and western new york, a foot to two feet of snow is possible, but again, the i-95 corridor, no real snow, no even a flurry around but the wind and cold air will be setting up for thanksgiving day and also for all the shoppers on black friday, you don't have a interwe are cop. grab one because it will feel cold right on in through this weekend. our next storm could be impacting travel, late sunday into monday. michelle. >> you've got to be kidding. that was an awful forecast, paul. i will thank you anyway. >> i'm just the messenger. >> i know. >> just the messenger. >> paul goodloe, thanks. all right. so will the big store hurt black

friday sales? let's ask our investors here. jim, what do you think about this storm, and how important is it to retail stocks considering how bad the timing is, the front end of thanksgiving weekend and the back snend. >> michelle, i think the retailers are breathing a sigh of relief. a big snow storm would have been a big problem pressuring margins and, therefore, earnings, but if we have a little bit of rainfall by cold weather that will probably push sales, and they have got relatively easy comparisons against last year so i think they are probably feeling better about this than a couple days ago. >> what about the sector in general, like it, don't like it? >> looking at the retail stocks today, we're probably set up for good spending in the holiday season. spending tends to follow the stock market and the s&p is up 7% so i think that the retail stocks and retail spending should be pretty good through the end of the year. >> are you in agreement, that you tried to say, jeff, like the

retail sector, or are you worried about the storm? >> listen, one of the reasons they have such easy comps from a year ago we were still dealing with the aftermath of hurricane sandy, much more of a devastating impact than this is likely to and it lingered for months, so while the comps are very easy, the national retail federation only looking for 3.9% year over year for holiday sales. that's pretty much in line with the long-term average of around 3.5, so when you've got 1.2 million more employees, rising real wages, a wealth effect that's huge in the stock market and the housing market, i think this is going to be a big black friday. i think it will have investors seeing green. >> people not familiar with comps, that's short for comparisons and the comparisons to last year are pretty easy is what jeff is saying so they should be able to hit it out of the park. what about the overall market? we get constant questions, hit 48 new highs this year. are we in a bubble? >> no, and we're going to see more new highs.

nasdaq 4000, just a flag that's waving out there to those who haven't gotten in yet. individual investors remain relatively pessimistic if you look at the american association american investor sentiment survey asking individuals how they feel. the bearish and bullish sentiments right in line with long-term averages. many not overenthusiastic. many missed out on a lot of move this year. i think as we cross these milestones, we'll bring a new category into these markets. been about buybacks. i think you'll see individuals, not corporations be the big drivers. >> how do you feel about the sentiment numbers so far. usually it's a very bad sign. when everybody is bullish, when the retail investor is bullish, that's when you know we've hit a top and jeff is saying right now bullish and bearish numbers are pretty equal. do you agree that the sentiment isn't bullish that we can still have more room to run here. >> i do think we have the potential for more room to run. the market has moved above long-term medium valuations now,

17.1 times trailing earnings and the median is about 16.5 since 1950 so you have to temper your expectations some because valuation dozen have an impact on forward returns. having said that, we're constructive on the stock market over bonds. the economic growth is going to hold up here and the fed is not going to move for quite a while and in that environment stocks and bonds. >> market up 28% in a year and then there were types in the early '90s where we had two or three years in a row, double-digit numbers, right? >> you know, it's interesting. we've got a year here where we're up 25% to 30% in the stock market. there's been i think six other years since 1927 for the s&p 500 that we've seen this kind of a gain. most of those, all but one, were followed by more double-digit returns the following year. one other year, '99, was followed by 2000, and that was certainly down, but it wasn't down dramatically, down maybe 10% so the point is most of the time this is a start of a streak

of double-digit years. we think we'll have a 15% year for the s&p 500 on the back end of this year's astounding gains. >> sounds like you're sending a warning to people who are still in bonds because they think they are so safe and maybe they are not so safe at this point. >> i think people's concern about the bond market is overstated. if you're buying quality bonds they will pay off at par. some rev.risk that you won't lose substantial amounts of money. we still think you have to have bonds in your portfolio to meet your spending obligations but with money to go in either direction we think the stock market will do better for you. >> jeff and james, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thanks, michelle. >> thank you. >> israel, will it sit idly by as iran gets closer to developing nuclear weapons? what are israel's options now, really? we're back to ask a top israeli diplomat that question and more next. [ engine revs ]

♪ [ male announcer ] oh what fun it is to ride. get the mercedes-benz on your wish list at the winter event going on now -- but hurry, the offer ends soon. [ santa ] ho, ho, ho! [ male announcer ] lease the 2014 glk350 for $419 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. a confident retirement. those dreams, there's just no way we're going to let them die. ♪ like they helped millions of others. by listening. planning. working one on one. that's what ameriprise financial does. that's what they can do with you. that's how ameriprise puts more within reach. ♪

step 3, print your savings certificate and take it to a truecar certified dealer... for negotiation-free guaranteed savings. save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com this weekend's nuclear deal with iran has already sparked outrage with politicians here at home. but after all the outrage, the question is what does israel do now? other now is the counsel general of israel in new york. ambassador, thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you for having me, michelle. >> what are israel's options right now? are we at a moment where we might see israel defy the united states? >> well, i think it's ultimately clear that in the conversation

about iran israel and the united states are clearly on the same side. we both agree that the issue at hand is the prevention of iran's nuclear program rather than its containment. so at the end of the day israel and the united states have worked closely and will continue to work closely on this issue together with the international community. we do have our opinion about the interim opinion that was signed four days ago. we think that this agreement is insufficient simply because of the fact that it does not address the core issue of iran's motivation of the very nature of this regime. i think it would be appropriate to compare this to a situation where you take a pyromaniac and you limit his or her access to fire by 80%, but they can still inflict harm with the remaining 20%, an hopefully the permanent agreement that will be negotiated soon will deprive iran of the remainder of the

remaining 20%. >> i'm not sure i agree with you when you say israel and the u.s. are on the same page in terms of prevention. i get the sense from this administration that they are thinking about containment. >> here is the difference. we believe that preventing iran from making one bomb or enriching enough uranium to produce one bomb is not enough. we believe that what needs to be done is for the entire international community to recognize that the problem is very capability of iran to enrich uranium, albeit at a lower level. this is what the interim agreement does. the interim agreement is allowing iran. >> right. >> iran will have enough uranium to produce one bomb. the problem is the very capability, the very technology that allows them to enrich uranium.

it doesn't matter which level. >> see, i think you're actually making my point, but, okay. let's move on. i want to ask you something else. we know that president obama and premise netanyahu spoke on the phone sunday. the president said u.s. and israel will stay in close contact on the issue, but here's what israel had to say about the phone call. there was a member of the likud party on tv in israel and he said, quote, the prime minister made it clear to the most powerful man on earth that if he intends to stay the most powerful man on earth it is important to make a change in american policy because the practical result of the current policy is liable to lead into the same failure that the americans absorbed in north korea and pakistan and iran could be next. mr. ambassador, did netanyahu really talk to obama that way? >> well, i don't -- i don't know. i was not on that call. i can tell you one thing that the prime minister said. the prime minister said two things that are very, very important for me to convey here tonight. the first is that the very idea

of having the world's most dangerous regime having access to the world's most dangerous weapon is a bad idea. the second thing that is said is that between friends it's not only important, it becomes essential to speak freely and openly and candidly, and if we think that a mistake is being done, it is our duty, sometimes an unpleasant duty, but it is our duty to made it known, and, of course, to convey our message. now, it's important to understand that at the end of the day, although we are geographically located at the very heart of the region, at the end of the day iran is not just ral's problem. iran poses a threat to the entire international community. it's the only country in the whole world that is actively destabilizing regimes all over

the world. >> which brings me to my next question. we've got this map up. are you really going to do deals with saudi arabia? when i hear this possibility, i feel like the tectonic plates of the world are shifting. >> there's no question that iran today poses the number one extension threat to the state of israel but not just to the state of israel. there's a whole -- there's a whole system of countries that are extremely concerned with iran's nuclear aspirations, and, therefore, our position is we need to take the entire machine away, dismantle the technology that allows them to enrich uranium. that's what we need to do as a community. >> that's that sounds like a yes when it comes to the situation with saudi arabia. >> well, i -- i can't tell you. it's too early in the game. i can tell you that we believe ultimately the international community should judge the iranians by their actions and not only by their words. we will know within the next six months whether there iranian regime is serious about changing

its very nature because that is the real question at hand. >> that's absolutely true. >> it's not about one bomb. it's about the very nature of this regime. what is it that they stand for? >> mr. ambassador, thanks so much for joining us tonight. we really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> all right. that's it for tonight's show. thanks so much for watching. we'll see you back here tomorrow on cnbc bright and early starting at 4:00 a.m. with "worldwide exchange." your grass waters itself. your dishes wash themselves.

so why don't your floors... ...clean themselves? the irobot roomba vacuum cleaning robot. irobot. do you? [ male announcer ] at progresso, we believe the second chapter of your life should be just as bold as the first. try the new bold flavors of heart healthy soup from progresso. wow...look at you. i've always tried to give it my best shot. these days i'm living with a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat, not caused by a heart valve problem. at first, i took warfarin, but i wondered, "could i up my game?" my doctor told me about eliquis. and three important reasons to take eliquis instead. one, in a clinical trial, eliquis was proven to reduce the risk of stroke better than warfarin. two, eliquis had less major bleeding than warfarin. and three... unlike warfarin,

there's no routine blood testing. [ male announcer ] don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i've got three important reasons to up my game with eliquis. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor today if eliquis is right for you. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor today stick with innovation. stick with power. stick with technology. get the flexcare platinum. new from philips sonicare.

>> narrator: in this episode of "american greed"... he's young, self-assured and loaded. >> troy peters: the cars and the houses and the money... he was living a pretty fast-paced life. >> tony elgindy claims to be a crusader, fighting fraud on wall street. >> dave chaves: he wanted to be known as the greatest short seller of all time. he wanted that following. ken breen: he had a persona that he cultivated... a bad guy gone good. >> but this so-called, "good guy" is running an insider trading scam... and his partner in crime is a crooked fbi agent. >> john nathn: