good luck getting by republicans. apparently, neither is any deal. the doomsday scenario the bankers picture now looking a lot more likely. craig smith says the president is playing with fire and we're the ones who stand to get burned. explain, craig. >> i think it's freightenning what happens here, nemo. these banks are correct in consensus with the imf, the cbo, and 14 of the 17 major economists in the world say it's not only a recession, but a severe recession, and as you and i talked about before, neil, i'm concerned about another downgrade on our debt. we need to continue to borrow money no matter how you slice this fiscal cliff, neil, it's horrendous for the future of the nation and for mr. obama, during a campaign stop to see he'd veto legislation like this, it's just

showing he has no concept how economics work, neil. neil: there's a lot of media attention today. it was not a fox alert to me in this sense craig that it's not new. he always said this would be his fiscal holy grail and would not extend the tax rates, lower tax rates for the rich for another year when he did so back in 2010, it was with an understanding it wouldn't be for so long, and the time has come for them to go up. is he just getting in a tough early negotiating point or do you fear something worse? >> i hope it's not for that reason, neil, for negotiation purposes because keep in mind when he went at it with john boehner and cantor back in summer of 2011 for raising the debt ceiling, if you believe what bob woodward wrote in the book, it was ugly. the visceral distaste, if you like, the dislike this president has for achievers, for

businesses, for people that are good high income earners, i jus@ don't get it, neil. these -- like the barchgs, for example, that you led with, 16 of the banks say, mr. president, this is critical. you can't play politics with this. neil: aren't they also -- where the president sets a trap for them and anyone criticizing what he's doing. he could be saying this. if you say the only thing blocking armageddon is a tax hike, sign me up for that pr fight because i'm willing to fight it. how do republicans then answer that they would turn it around, sacrifice the economy, the cliff, everything you talked about for keeping rates low on the rich? >> simple. l republicans just have to point back to history. what did jack kennedy do?

what did reagan do? every time you lower tax rates and spread open the base, you gain revenue. neil: i agree, but i one-up you. if you argue years ago was that you didn't want to -- other than counter republicans on extending them, save face saying now is not the time to raise them because the economy's rocky. we are actually rockier now than then. in other words, growth in the economy is less than then. with that argument taken away, this is really a brazen political move that might or might not work, but it's clear where he's coming from. >> absolutely, neil, this is 100% politics because you can't look at the map -- maybe the president doesn't read the briefings from his intelligence people, but he's not reading the cbo reports. i reviewed the reports before i came to the studio. neil: i love that about you.

you always do your homework. god bless you, go ahead. >> look, nay say 9.1% unemployment. they say 2 million jobs lost, kneel. saying, look, if you extend everything rings go deep in the report to see it. we could see 4.5% growth in 2013. if we don't extend it, you're going to see growth between .8.and .17%. the president should say we have to extends this. i'm going to do what's best for the country. i'm not going to try to gin up the base because, look, right now let's make sense. he's trying to gin up the base to get support because he's losing the middle american voter right now. the polls are clear about that. >> i think it's part of getting the base happy, but i also think, you know, you don't want to look like you're changing your mind and flipping op this so early. there's a double strategy.

i'm not saying it's great strategy, but there is a method to this. >> no doubt, neil, from a political stand point, he has to say he's breaking the word again because in 2010, he made it clear, i will not do this again. if he was on it now, he has to say heat gave back another promise to the left so -- here's the bottom line, neil. this is what's important to fox business news people. this has ramifications. it's not like this is just going to come and go and everything's going to be fine. the banks are warning, the imf is warning, the cbs is warning. i know in the personal business, i talk to businessman all over the country, they pull their horns in 2013, why not make that a year of growth rather than a year of stagnation? why not grow the economy versus trying to divide a stagnant economy up. he's not making sense. he shouldn't have promised a veto on this deal, never. neil: you're on on that wagon.

thank you very much. good to see you again. >> thank you. neil: insisting it's the president bringing us to the cliff, and in the end, it's not the rich getting hit, but the whole country will. explain. >> well, of course we're here in washington, d.c. again waiting until the last second to address the fiscal cliff a long time coming; right? no surprise there. going back to what the guest said, this all comes down to president obama's political ideology of taxing the rich and giving to people who he thinks benefit from that money, but the fact is that if the cuts are not extended to everyone, middle class families who president obama has been out on the campaign trail saying he's standing up for sees a tax increase of $3500. now, say they extend the cuts for those under the $250,000 mark. well, it's still affecting the middle class -- neil: no doubt. i try to understand this strategy here, and the part of it is that he will hang on that,

the president and republicans, you mean to tell me that you'll sacrifice taxes for everyone who is not rich like you, and everything that goes along with this just to protect your friends, and if you want to go on your doorstep. how are republicans, then, going to agent in response? >> this is almost an impossible thing to defend if you're a republican because you're trying to defend the rich and 11%. that's what the president is trying to put forward here. neil: in other words, john, that's a good -- i want to be clear. he then says we could have had a deal. we could have avoided falling off the cliff, this train wreck, whatever analogy you use, if not for the republicans, you know, tied so closely to the rich. >> right. that's what he said in the debate that romney has a one point plan to benefit the rich. this is jackson, fdr, the core

commission, a time tested tradition in politics. go after the popular message, and you get re-elected. this has to do with the election in two weeks, not the fiscal cliff. he has to draw the line because he said in four years he'll let the tax cut expire, and if he doesn't, he's got to at least stay until the election and then pick the fight in december. neil: that's the question. if he were to be re-elected, katie, then he's in this box. republicans will not consider letting the rates on the rich expire. maybe the possibility they have the election to be bygones, and who knows, but i think it's unlikely so then what is the approach? do you extend it a little? hair it out? does the president, and for that matter, republicans, look like

they're losing face by doing something like that? it's all bust or all in. >> well, republicans put forward the idea of rewriting the tax code to make it simple; right? i want to talk about the idea of defending the rich. they're not defending the rich, but the job creators. neil: you're preaching to the choir, i'm just saying the guy's very good at this. he's a very, very adept campaigner. >> it's not working, neil. neil: polls show him slipping, but that's how he's going to brand it, and if he's re-elected, he's in the driver's seat on this so how will republicans -- i'm not saying that's a gimp, but just saying how do republicans respond to that pr attack? >> well, they can say, look, we're not going to tax people who creating jobs in this country because unemployment is so high, and then president obama, if he decides, you know, to let all -- to go off the fiscal cliff, he's going to have to deal with the consequences of people not hiring, and that's already happening now, because as you know, neil, businesses

are looking at their budgets for next year now, and they don't know what's going to happen so president obama's going to have to live with the consequences of people not having a job and unemployment go up as a result of not taking care of the situation now. neil: john, do you think we're going to get to that point? do you think it's going to explode? >> yeah, i think there's a good chance of it because the president wants to makes this a zero some game and not say it's let's redo the tax code which is what a lot of moderates talk about. he wants to make this specifically about the rich, and because of that, we very well could be. they are both painting themselves in a corner here. neil: are you in bermuda again? >> yes, sir, i am. neil: we'll be slightly north of you next week. i'm going to be live in boca raton going through midnight. join us on that. iran just dropped a bomb,

iranian president says we're losing power because we're powering op with spending. so many here say that midget is right, but, first, billions meant to help out underwater homeowners, but they are the ones not getting the money. guess who is? everyone but the folks who need it in those states. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you make 70,000 trades a second... ♪ reach one customer a time? ♪ or help doctors turn billions of bytes of shared information... ♪ into a fifth anniversary of remission?

♪ whatev your business challenge, dell has t technology and services to help you solve it. i've got a ne long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my optns. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare sulement insurance plan, insured by utedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans,

you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decisi guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there'e's so much more tsee. so we found a plan that can travel withs. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who ha already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement iurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans

that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. neil: bank settlement that increasingly proves settling to help struggling home owners, but states use the money for themselves and any but the homeowners. half the cash paid out not going to the homeowners as promised. david asman warned us about this as homeowners shouldn't hold breath. >> they never listen to me. neil: it's not the first time this happened. >> should it surprise anybody there's no water among thieves? look at the state houses in sacramento, springfield, illinois, albany, new york.

zest pools. it's not you i'm talking about, the good people, but politicians in your city. the guys are to take the money and divide it up. how much government money goes to where it's supposed to go to? neil: under 20%? >> we had a trillion welfare bill, $1 trillion a year on welfare, food stamps, the whole lot of it. how much of that goes to people? if you take all the poverty programs together, add them up, and rather than giving morn to bureaucracies, write a check. you'd be every to raise every poor person country in the middle class status. cut a check. neil: that doesn't mean the wallets do. it's weird. this was sold initially, and we covered this; right? there's like a laser-like focus to make sure it leaves washington to go directly to the homeowners, and there was a rule

who would get it and how. you had to be at least three months over, had to be in an overheated market, and this was a strategy how you could almost guarantee that money would arrive. >> all of these states signed on to it saying, okay, we'll do it, we'll do it. you're not looking at california there, which is not highlighted or new york, but the big state, they are the ones taking the most of it to deal with their irresponsible spending. it's going into the coffers. neil: when a check comes from washington, it's supposed to into a lock box. there's no box or lock. the state gets it, and what happens? >> well, they first make big promises about where it's going to go. this is what happened in california where jerry brown said, okay, we have it divided up, some goes to help poor people in house, some helps people in foreclosure procedures, ect.. well, then, down the line, people forget about it. after the big public announcements and speeches and

everything, people forget about it, and money is fundable, money goes into the big pocket, and usually, in places like california and new york, those pockets don't have a hole in the bottom, and the money goes in and in and in. neil: the argument from the administration is, you know, money not spent is not money abused or wasted. it's just not spent. we got to get it out faster. it might not be used for nefarious purposes, but could be in pot. what do you think of that? >> not much. a lot of the announcements come from federal agencies who spend no time tracking money they have. look at the organizations starting this, the federal reserve board. this $25 billion for the robo signing. this was the settlement, $25 billion, it was issued the fine by the federal reserve board. that's not a member of -- that's supposed to be a private institution. remember benjamin netanyahu saying we're not a part of the government. well, why, then are they forcing banks to give money to places

where it doesn't end up. the federal reserve board is supposed to be a private institution acting like an arm of the government in doing this, and, by the way, it'sed dad-frank, liz-warren creation bureau monitoring all of the robo signing deals, and talk about an endless pit, it's a $500 million agency that decides for themselves how much they get from taxpayers. it's a project supposed to be private, but that's an arm of the federal government. neil: what's more potentially here, say the money arrives to the right people, they have the money, and them that is assuming they were then able to stay in their homes. find out with a lot of these programs that they end up defaulting all over again so it's sort of like failure after failure after failure. the only difference is paying more for the pleasure. >> more agencies we have, more departments we have, more new rules and regulations we have,

the more of the same we see. wherever you have a government agency and regulator, you'll see wasted money like we see in in program. it's going to happen. you know, no matter who is the next president, they have to deal with the new agencies created over the past three years, and they are not simplifying things, and they are not making it cheaper, but more complex and more expensive. neil: when you try to stop the ag thy, sometimes in washington you prolong it. >> that's right. put them out of the misery. that's the deal. move washington somewhere, maybe bermuda. that wouldn't be bad, they wouldn't mind. neil: i think john set up shop there. >> what a character. neil: thank you, david asman. he looks like he's from "shrek," but say this about iran's dictator, he sized up washington well and leave it to shorty to say we're the ones spent. call him ralph see you later,

nader. he's gone rogue, here and only here. ♪ everyone has goals. take the steps to reach yours, with us with real advice, for real goals. the us bank wealthanagement advisor can help you. every step of the way. om big steps, to little steps. since 1863 we've helped guide our clients, so they can take the steps to help grow, prerve, and pass along their wealth. so their footsteps can help the next generation find their own path. all of us serving you. us bank

neil: the nut close to a nuke says we're the biggest threat to the world. cantor binned gad says that -- ahmadinejad says america's debt bomb is going to explode, and we're ground zero. you know thinks are bad when the zero gets it, but the guys piling up the debt zeros do not. well put. now what? this guys sees us for what we are. >> well, neil, consider the source here a little bit. ahmadinejad is a trash talking tyrant. back in 2007, he said the u.s. dollar would be worthless, and, again, consider the source, a

man whose own currency fell by 40% in a month, inflation -- neil: yeah, but he controls the state. i'm not giving him kudos, but he's not so stupid that to see the obvious, you know, problem here, and that is we can talk a good game, but financially, we're not playing one. >> certainly. i mean, we don't get it. we don't understand this that we're head -- neil, down the same path that crashed iran's economy, big spending, redrix of wealth, government control over every element of economic life, and, you know, we have in place a government, a president that honestly believes that piling on debt, that's spending money creates wealth. that's why we see him year after year, trillion dollar a year deficits and slack economic growth. neil: you heard what the president said earlier today, doubled down on this no compromise on the tax for the rich. he'll be president re-elected or

not through the enof the year -- end of the year, and he might push that regardless of defeat, and then what? what do you see happening? >> well, neil, what ultimately helps or hurts an economy is not one particular tax plan or this particular economic plan. it's the idea. the president's ideas are purely self-sack official, all about redistribution from the so-called haves to the have-notes. that's always crashed the economy. regardless of what happens with this particular fiscal cliff, if we stay on this path, spending money we only do not have, but that we literally take from our citizens, the productive members of society, economic collapse is the only end game. neil: i agree, but nearly term, you heard about the immediate threat and we are freaked ut about it. i don't know why. i understand the combination of the rates expiring and taxes. it will be a doosy, no doubt about it, and the official

numbers at a minimum of 1.8 to the economy, a recession, i know that's right, but for the sake of making a quick and potentially sloppy deal, we don't address the long term issue pointed out. in other words, we might escape the frying pan, but we end up in the fire anyway. >> all the quick deals, nemo, escape the fundmental issues that the economy's facing. it's not that we need a better plan or more redistribution, more court reporting -- control, but we need economic freedom, the one plan that is on the left and that the right have not tried. we know ahmadinejad has not, but our government should. ultimately, that's why wealth and jobs come from as well. neil: way to go. that's powered. johnny, thank you very much. >> thank, neil, great to be with you. neil: all quite in lower manhattan today, business as usual. forget what could have been.

so classed about bad guys we don't stop for a second to know how lucky we've been? the news is that one day later, no one's reporting on why he did.

people really love snapshot from progrgressive, but don't just listen to me. listen to these happy progressive stomers. i wasaving big on car insurce. with snapshot, i knew what i could save before i switched to progressive. the better i drive, the more i save. i wish our company had something this cool. you're not filming this, are you? aw! camera shy. snapshot from progressive. test-drive snapshot before you switch. visit progressive.com today. neil: hey, did you read the front page story of the guy who tried to pull another 9/11 in lower manhattan? oh, that's right. it was not on the front page, was it? a foiled terror plot relegated to the deep inside pages of some of the america's premier newspapers. most making scant note of a

bangladesh in custody right now, but who thought he was on the verge of becoming another bin laden yesterday. a plot to bring down the federal reserve bank of new york barely worth a mention in new york. that is what is scary, my friends. not how he wanted to bury us, but how major immediating buried his wanting to bury us. he says that's the problem with the ongoing war. we're come place sent even as the bad guys keep coming. as you often remind me, we succeed every time, they have to succeed just once, huh? >> absolutely, neil. thanks for having me on again. we have been lucky, but the new york police department and fbi have been brilliant in trying to catch the guys in cutting them off. we've been lucking in cases like the underaway who tried to set his underwear off. neil: imagine he succeeded and how close he was to succeeding.

you reminded us, and i tip my hat to you, and thank you for not making me look like an idiot at the time where we come so close and get to kind of cocky was not the word, but come place sent about this war, and making it look easy, but it's not. >> well, no, it's not. fortunately, we've been lucky with this stuff. the guys they send over, and this clown in new york, apparently was not sent, but came on his own jihad mission, but the people are not descendents, but from the shallow end of the gene pool here. neil: that i get, but i think they are plenty of smart guys, anddi'm not here to sing praises, but he was not an idiot. for all of these cooks and idiots who try to pull a stunt, this guy proclaimed on the

internet a jihadist movement that's terror, but others are craftier. who is to say he's not a distraction? that he's not a side note to what might be an under lying real attack plan that we're missing? >> well, you're not paranoid, and, you know, for people like me, i sometimes wake up wondering if i'm paranoid enough. they are dedicated people. there are nations sponsoring terrorism. imagine if the guy in new york had been really dedicated terrorist who was supported by syria or iran and well funded and connected to other al-qaeda operatives here in the country, and i'm sure there's a lot of them. the point was he might have been more successful. i mean, a thousand pound bomb will not bring down the federal reserve, but al-qaeda, forever, from the beginning, always wanted to damming us by damaging our economy. the economy is weak. you know that better than i. it's fragile. if you have a disruption, say,

you know, make that building unusable for a week, things hurt around the country. they aim at big targets, and they try to have a big effect, and, you know, god help us, someday ttey may succeed. neil: you mentioned the threat, why always lower manhattan, why so many the incidents, close ones in brooklyn and surrounding areas. why always manhattan? why lower manhattan? >> well, two things, biggest success, ever, was 9/11 occurring in manhattan, and they try to repeat that gaping the same glory that was a formed thought, and again, new york, you know, as much as a lot of other people say to new york, it's really the financial capital of world like america. if they do damage to the economy, that's the fastest target. again, i say, huge kudos to the fbi and nypd. neil: do you think we could see 9/11 again?

>> i think we could. i think it probably, you know, god help us if it happens, but there's a lot of kinds of 9/11s that could happen. a massive cyber attack may yet happen taking down a large part of the financial structure. who knows. there's a lot of very imaginative bad guys out there. the threat is constant, nemo. we joke about paranoia, but it's a constant threat, the ideology that propels the people is not something we engaged to fight yet. as long as the ideology is out there and propelling nations like iran to exhort terrorism and to assert terrorism, i mean, heck, they tried to blow up the saudi ambassador in washington, d.c. in one of my favorite restaurants. they are not going to stop. we have to defeat them, and that's got to be also an ideological war, not just a kinetic war. neil: thank you, my friend. good seeing you. >> thank you, sir. neil: big dog and boss stomping for the president today. looks like the president needs penn because a bunch of

democrats are running away from him. ♪

[ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical eenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarmedicare supplement insurance plan, insured unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-cket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, ere are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too.

and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for nerations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behi it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you' be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with allhe good years ead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide

will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. >> if he would have brought the saxaphone, i would have -- [cheers and applause] you would have seen a real jam up here. neil: bubba and the boss. bight and real rock star bruce spring steen rallying in ohio today for president obama. the president could use the star power because it's said more and more party luminaries are singing a different tune. what's going on with them,de, na? >> thank you for having me on the show. good to be back. vulnerable senate candidates running from the president's record. there's senator joe mansion in west virginia criticizing the president for releasing details of the bin laden raid, and joe

donnelly in indiana criticizing the president, bob kerry in nebraska, and even obama's trying to distance himself from the record. we saw in the past few debates all he can do is criticize mitt romney for preparing a $5 trillion tax cut mitt romney's not even proposing. look at obama's record, no wonder candidates want to distance it. unemployment at 7.8%, as high as it was when obama took office, and higher when you factor in the people who dropped out of the work force. over $1 trillion deficit every single year. neil: it's worse than it was and worse than the industrial average, and what said that better than paul ryan speaking of scranton, pennsylvania, the vice president's birthplace now looking at roughly 1.5% higher unemployment than when he took office. having said that, though, how do they explain to the president, you don't have to campaign with me, big guy or they don't call him or how do they play it?

did the second debate that many argue at least the president showed up for that one, did that change any of this? what are you hearing? >> well, it's impossible to really, for them to really distant themselves from obama because the people, democrats running for office now have been in office the entire time the president's been. they have been in congress, and the president couldn't have all of these unprecedented spending levels, record deficits, record debt if not for the house, and the senate and the first two years of the presidency pushing through all the bills. obamacare's impossible without them, dodd-frank, stimulus, ect., ect., ect.. all it does is point out the democrats department perform when they were in power in the house, senate, and presidency. neil: could be something else going on. confusion in the polls lends me to believe people with no backbone, and this applies to all types, republicans and democrats, they don't know who to suck up to, and so when the president looks strong, you

know, wow, he's my guy, i'll be with him. when he looks weak and after debate, and i know the rolling day average polls, gallop and others don't take into account the second debate, but he's further behind mitt romney so then they start feeling, well, maybe i shouldn't be running back to the big guy just yet. i think wall street is the same way. a lot of the ceos who hedge bets, didn't know who they were going to align themselves too, and they made up minds just a month ago to hell with it. we don't care if he runs, roll the dice, and hook up to mitt romney, hope he wins, but we can't do worse than what we do with president obama. are democrats at that point where their cutting bait now, even if the polls look encouraging for the president? >> well, i think bruce springsteen is a good example of this phenomena that you're talking about because he's been very tent thattive in the

endorsement, and he's campaigning with bill clinton, he took a long time whereas in 2008, he was gung ho and in 2004 for kerry, he was gung ho, and to the letter of the president, he said it was a rough ride. i think economists' conception about independents is that they are just looking for a moderate position, but you said it perfectly. they are looking for somebody with backbone, and mitt romney displayed that in the last two debates. democrats' best line in campaigning is to stick to principle, but the fact is, i don't know what the prince. s are other than higher taxes on the rich. neil: you seem to be for mitt romney based on what you said. good seeing you. >> thank you. neil: now ralph had enough. nader on a government that grows and not saving anything. he's got a plan.

neil: you heard the fiscal cliff is coming whether we over talk about it or not, and the debt is soaring, and washington, well, they are just dad ling. the economy's still struggling. a new report showing the government spends more on welfare programs last year than anything else. nader says the country's in crisis and needs ideas proposing re-examining about everything we do part of the 17 solutions, and it's author, ralph nader is here. ralph, good to see you. >> thank you, neil. neil: what did we do, the left and the right, wrong in doing budgets? >> we didn't allocate them in the areas that spell fairness and economic development for the majority of the people, but dumped into military, weapons systems, obsolete, wars of

aggression. that's not productive for jobs back home. there's a tax system with perverse incentives, doesn't provide incentives for productive things, but provides speculation, and the third, and most re-elected lant is that we don't have an adequate public works program. we should take the corporate welfare, get rid of it, have fairer taxation of cooperations paying no federal income tax like general electric or verizon, and cut the bloated military budget, put it in repairing america in every community. you know the list, schools, clinics, public transits, sewage, water systems, good jobs that can't be exported to china. neil: you would raise taxes on corporations, well to do, all of that thing, and pour it into a big old infrastructure on steroids here? that seems to work like a charm in the past, but who's to say throwing more money at it will

yield any different result? >> well, that's the second act. the second agent's making sure the auditors are there and local communities have this money spent properly so it doesn't get wasted. neil: never happens. we had a lock box for social security; right? we had targeted lower tax rates regarding schools to make sure that, you know, the money that was going to go to education would land directly at those schools' doorstepsment didn't happen. >> if you're saying we can't have a society that's fair and productive without citizen engagement and taxpayer engagement, i agree with you. that's why in the book i have ways to have civic power, cisk education in the schools, and congressional wash dog groups in every district. when you have more poverty, you have more food stamps. neil: do you think we need everyone to have skin in the game? say you're right, we have to spread the wealth, you and i can

disagree on the particulars of that, but deferring to you for the argument. if so few, whether the corporations or the well-to-do foot the bill and pay the taxes, and 47% are not paying any income taxes, federallincome taxes, by the way, ralph, i take nothing away from those pays social security taxes from those who retired spending a life paying taxes. i'm not here to minimize the contributions or get in a class warfare with you, but when i left and graduated from grad school, it was 24%. it ballooned to almost half. how's that constructive to what ralph na -- erments to do when so -- naderments to do when so few have skin in the game. >> adjust it for inflation, tens of billions of dollars for 30 million workers making less now than was made in 1968. neil: minimum wage of what today?

>> $10.38, equivalent of 1968, 70% of the people. neil: we can argue about how effective has for small business owners and willingness to hire. that lifts their work that raises their base, they become tax paying americans. then what? how much of a difference do you think it makes? how much does it bring down 47%? maybe to 40%? >> yeah, but that's the easy one, the quick one, but others are effective. if you that public works program, these are well-paying jobs paying income tax, but, you see, i think we should tax, first, speculator stock transactions, tax pollution, carbon tax, exxon is even okay with that. tax addictive products before we tax work. also, have a natural debate on a progressive consumption tax. neil: i know you don't like wall street and have a distrust of the financial guide, much of that deserved over the years. if you're right from the get-go,

setting up a series of taxes or just more taxes, who would invest in an environment and in a country that does that? >> well, you tax things that a society wants to diminish. that's why there's a tobacco tax, for example. you tax things -- neil: do you want to diminish the stock market and capitalism and free enterprise? >> no, diminish corporate crime, pollution -- neil: i know, but going after the criminals -- going after the few criminals, are you destroying it for those who -- and i know it's startling to believe, but are not crooked, that -- >> don't tax that. neil: they are not lucifer. >> what you tax is that -- neil: no one puts on their 1040, criminal behavior. don't tax wild six tier speculations, bets, bets on,

derivative, derivative. that's casino capitalism, not productive. that's the problem. the corporations sit on $2 trillion of money, not giving adequate dividends to the owners who they -- neil: why are you depending on that? a lot fear they don't know what's happening on taxes, and a lot fear their double taxed for bringing money already been taxed back home, a lot fear regulations, same stuff you like, and lot fear health care laws that's messier and uglier for the day. i know you don't like them, but sit tight on the cash. >> a lot don't want to give dividends back to the shareholders, number one, and a lot of them -- neil: by the way -- by the way, there maybe little appetite period taxes dividends at the top income rate. why bother? >> i agree with reagan. he taxed diff deandz, capital gains, and ordinary income at the same, even steven. is reagan too radical for fox news and neil cavuto? neil: as i told you before, reagan in the 1986 tax tried to

close loopholes to rid of special allowances and credits. right to make sure you expand the tax base and those avoiding paying did not. you're right about that. but the idea was to close loopholes preventing many from paying taxes. this is what i want to ask you. you trust the government to handle this. i do not. you give the government virtue that i do not share. you don't -- >> you put words in my mouth. neil: you address the enterprise, i do not. >> listen, neil, you can't count the number of times we've sued government so don't put words in my mouth. i want the people in control of the government. i don't want a few corporations to turn and control majority members of congress and shovel cash to nullify votes. that's number one. number two, mitt roulette romney is so far to the right neil:

doesn't have a good ring to it. >> so far to the right of reagan, so far to the right of nixon, and so are the republicans in congress. we're dealing here with a rogue republican party, and the fact is -- neil: you said they are both failing us. at the same time, you say parties fail us, you put trust in a government that you think gets it right; right? bottom line? >> no, i want belter elected officials and more voter choice. they locked up the green party eight hours chain in the debate in hofstra because shemented to highlight the fact that third parties are shut out of the debate system. neil: fair enough. i want to have you back, but on the my corporate time, it's good to have you, make you think, he'll make you think. that'll do it for us here. bob...

oh, hey alex. just picking up some, brochures, posters copies of my acceptance speech. great! it's always good to have a backup plan,

in case i get hit by a meteor. wow, your hair looks great. didn't realize they did photoshop here. hey, good call on those mugs. can't let 'em see what you're driing. you know, i glad we're both running a nice, clean race. no need to get nasty. here's your "honk if you had an affair with taylor" yard sign. looks good. [ male announcer ] fedex office. now save 50% on banners. [ male announcer ] hodo you make 70,000 trades a second... ♪ reach one customer at a time? ♪ or help doctors turn billions of bytes of shared information... ♪ into a fifth anniversary of remission?

♪ whatever your business challenge, dell has the technology and services to help you solve it. so, which supeast 4g lte service wod yochoose, based on this chart ? don't rush into it, i'm not looking for the fastest answer. obviously verizon. okay, i have a differenchart. going that way, does that make a difference ? look at verizon. it's so much more than the other ones. so what if we just changed the format altogher ? isn't that the exact same thing ? it's prey clear. still sticking with verizon. verin. more 4lte coverage than all otheretworks combined.

>> there is no end to their greed. >> the ways of wall street. >> why we need government intervention. >> i can take the whole cake and. >> my guest says agreed works. it is a good things. >> greed works. >> "is greed good?"