prediction? >> blackberry has got the stuffing bt out of it, but the new blackberry system ten is going to get them back, could be up $30 and 11 right now. anit's going to be a hit. >> brenda: gary b, a bull or bear oth. >> i'm bearish, i think it's going back down to single digs. >> brenda: finally jonas your prediction. >> brenda 2013 is the year the robot takes over, and it's going to solid in the vacuum cleaner robotics business and they're leading in 2013. >> brenda: oh, my god, you cannot replace him. that's, you know, have you ever done anything like that? and quickly guys we're going to go around the brady bunch circle here, the square. mar is the market going, jonas. >> up. >> brenda: and toby, how about a you? >> it's going down and then it's going up. >> brenda: and then gary b? >> it's going up in 2013. >> brenda: cavuto on business

in three,two... >> hink taxes are not going up if these guys pull off a last minute miracle? think again. hi, everybody, i'm dagen mcdowell in for neil cavuto and fox on top of a clock ticking down. less than 62 hours until it all goes town and i'm not talking about thatall in time square or those automatic tax hikes and spending cuts lmakers are scrambling to avoid. i'm talking about taxes going up no matter what. taxes in the president's health care law. a new tax on investment income, a tax on medical device mers costing jobs, those aren't the only ones, that last tax forcing companies, many companies to laff workers. and coming attractions for the new year, to ben stein, charles payne, todd soenberger and sarah, charles, you first. >> let the flood gates open.

listen, dagen, obviously, we know-- actually we don't know, but it's to nancy pelosi's point we're going find out and i hope we like it. a lot of taxes associated with obamacare. you mentioned the medical device ise, a l of these companies, by the way, medical device comnies have been laying off worrs right now. and that is, if this impacts, by the way, everyone, takes away from research and development, which will take away from life saving innovation and it's just, again, the very tip of the iceberg. ultimately, there's going to be ahole lot of taxes that just opens the gate for. this is just the beginning. >> ben, even if you look at action taken by the mical device makers, there's already damage that's been done by the tax increases built into this health care law, has it got? >> well, the damage is built in, but on the other hand good built into, too. there are people who are very poor who won't be able toet healthnsurance a not very, between medicaid and middle class and we'll be able to get health insurance, or some, overall, obviously, i don't

ke the bill. i don't think any sensible person would likehe obamacare bill. but tax increases are a fact of life. that's the story, tax increases under mr. bush and surpluses under mr. clinton tax increases as far as the eye can see under mr. obama. >> wheno the spendg cuts happen, sarah? >> never. >> and you often see the tax increases kick in and inhe health care law, and spending never gets cut. >> i think you need to look where the spending goes, providereventive care. and we saw 80 million acces preventative care and that's a net savings for the entire health care system passed on to all of us. >> how have job cuts we've en the medical device makers, they're soued the horn about them. how does it help the broad economy though? >> what you're seeing is readjusting of the economy.

most of this tax money ces out ofhose m making 250,000 or mo more, an increase on those individuals. at the same time that we're finding out her on capitol hill about a drease on those making 250 or less, so, majority of amerans. when we have this increase on aery small portion, we see that those folks are welcoming this increase, a poll released the day befor christm put thugh american express and the harrison group, saw that 67% of those making 1% or more want today see this increase happen. >> all right. let move on to todd, because i can tell you that there are a lot of tax ineases just in this health care law, i didn't even mention some of them at the top of the show, todd. what i tking about additional payroll tax for those making more than $250,000, a taxable taxing and spending, and how much health care you can write off every year, and people don't know how much it will hurt them and the broad economy.

>> that's right, they haven't en it taken out of their paychecks yet. this is what fox viewers want to know what's going to impact them on day one and you're talking about the hospital with the medical bill that we're talking about, that's the real money that's going to be taken out of your paycheck. your n amount is going to be less and has nothing do with what's taking place with the fiscal cli negotiations, it's all set in law. so, we all have to expect to have less money the start of the year. >> charles, this raises the issue-- >> i want to go to charles, th raises the issue of how much can thisountry a this ecomy bear? because it then said, tax increasesre the new way of life for us and you see what's going on in washington to avoid the tax increases, these are built in this. i don't believe that everybody understands what the overall impact wil be. >> i don't think everyone understands and ben is right with respect to the idea that right now, that's the direction we're headed io. no one is talking about spending cuts.

no one is talking about how do we, y know, truly bring down the 16 trillion dollar deficit. instead of loaning us marks toward 20 plus. there are things that are ultimately up for play. mortgage interest deduction is up for play and the health care that provides for you, that's taxed at some point. at the least, it'seans tested and some peopleren't gointo get it, but ultimately, this government has a ferocious appetite for spending and all of these cuts that we're talking about, even though they will hurt everyone, they're just a drop in the buct for where we're going. >> i just laughe ben, as so as you saw mortgage deduction, i was ready to go-- >> houses and a problem-- >> how much did you say. >> don't you have nine houses? >> more than that. more than that. >> don't admit that, ben. >> the ideas clobberinghe

housing market on itsnees after it'seen on its back four or five years, that's crazy, craziness. >> more on the housing market coming up. i don't want to stick to that, but that-- again, we don't want ben to faint in the middle of the segment, but, sarah, this just raises the issue, and it's someing that i said to todd. there are so many tax increases built in that people don't know about this coming year and there are more to come. there's only so much that an economy and the job creators, i'm talking weahy americans can bear and i do not believe for a minute that lawmakers fully understand what they've already done and what they will do. >> well, i think we also need to look the what and so we're getting rid of annual tax and lifetime tax on insurance and making preventive costs or fr preventative health care, th means for the viewer out there you could catch something that could bankrupt

you that would get you sick earlier and now won't bankrupt you, your insurance won't run out. and won't be out of luck if something tragic happens in your life. there are three changes and there are many, many more others insuring those under 26. >> we've gone over that, but the issues payin for that. and paying for it add badly speaking, what willt do to the american economy, todd? >> dagen, you mentioned how ameranouseholds would they he be able to actually stomach this, right now, americans were deleveraging since the recession started and now ey're taking on more debt right now. and why is that? food costs up and energy costs, dropping recently, but high for most of the year. you have to go out and take on more debt and now when you start squeezing that take home pay and less money that's there to pay the bills, you go nto further debt. so, ancillary--

there are more negatives than sitis, but realistical, it's a tragic for the economy. >> there's nothing in obamace that addresses preventative care and some instancesight cause people to be more reckless, hey health care will provideor it. you see the ground swell of welfare spending. and a lot of people are taking ood stamps and buying yodels and ring-dings with it, nothing to keep them honest and off the taxpayer dime on the medical side. >> that's the final word, sarah, we've got to wrap this up. but full he disclosure, i clearly am very angry about the excise tax on nning, which was in the health care law. (laughter) >> which kicked in immediately. again, tax first and worry aboutverybody else later, okay? >> you one-percenter. it hurts busiss, tanning

parlors everywhere. i'm serious. the facebook face-off. a new lgiving bosses passders, k

to cavuto on business and for the latest on foxnews.com. >> i in your facebook. starting next tuesday, employers in illinois cannot ask workers for passwords to social media sites like facebook and twitter, it's supposed to protect the privacy of workers. dd, you're the not sure about this one, why not? >> you have t look out for the company. every employee out there, they ar an ambassadors of tt organization in and out of the offic so, i want to know as an empyer, what are my employees up to? what are they -- are they into some type of a club, illegal activity, whatever it is. i gethe privacy issues, but if you're going to post something out there, iant to know what it is and how it's going to affect my company and

bottom line. >> ben, what do yoink. >> i would like people not to disclose passwords to eloyers. i think that employers know too ch about themployees anyway, privacy is extremely high value under the constitution, let's keep it that way. >> yeah, an employer,ven a prospective e one can't go in my house and see how tidy i keep my bedroom. why should they be able to go online andee what i'm guessing, i think iprivate, with my friends, arles? >> you bet. >> here is the only problem, guys, we're starting back with that whole reg, and things. the ceo's have to sign the bottom linehat they know everything that's going on with the company. by the way, i think it's unfair that you know, some guy who isn the london office and you sign off on this, and you're culpable for some really big time penalties, fees and you know, we're asking a lot of corporate america and tying their hands up with the privacy issue, believe me i i'm not on facebook

for that particular reason, but you kn, there's a flip side to this. we can't keep pressuring corporate america and ceo's to know every single aspect of their business if they don't have access to it. >> even if there's a law, sarah, asking for passwords, privacy picy is like swiss eese and employers will be able to find out plenty of dirt on people online without needing their passwords? >> i absolutelily come down on the side of privacy on this one. myroblem is really bad management. saying to your employees, i don't believe you have good judgment, i don't believe you're capable of doing whatever it is, t tks i hired you for or wanted to hire you for. it's psychology in the workplace. >> the employee does not need to go into facebook. it's not a law that they need to do it. ty're doing it because they want to reach out t friends and social networking. and lien, what you put out there online is public information. as an employer, i need to know what are my employees ing.

are th talking to a competitor, are they giving out secrets? are they doing things especially in the securities business, doing things they shouldn't be doing? >> you know very well, tt's not what it's about. it's's about people saying having s clubs or sething like that. >> come on, ben. >> and it's all on the-- >> and equivalents of going through my closet to see if i've got whips and chains. >> and wt happens if i go out there online and start releasing secrs about the organization here? you're going to tell me-- >> that's already against the law. that's already against the law. that's already-- >> and i actually will throw this back in your face, that if you outl a company, even in s state broadly, from asng for someone's password, you reduce their operating sts because you he greater compliance costs, greater legal liability if that's what u're actually doing is policing the internet looking at perspective employees. >> i'll accept that, dagen. however, let's be honest here. if i have an employee at,

say, they're up to no od, that's going to cost me more in the bottom line, legal costs, compliance costs. i want to nip it in the bud. >> and you won't have the besides. >> the employer, the employer is not supposed to be big brother supervising what over employee does in his time off. that's absolutely an outrage to even contemplate. >> i don't care what the do outside. >> why-- >> and putting it in public, the public domainin. >> no, no, not when they're at work, not not related to their work, the employer should have nothing to do with that, that's too much contrl. >> i want to know at my emplees are doing, talking to competitors or releasing secrets. they wouldn't-- >> charles. >> they wouldn't be doing that online. >> unless they're really dumb and then you don't want them working there. hey, charles? >> i was just going to say one thing, i learned somhing new about facebook from ben with the sex clubs so i'm going to reconsider ining. >> i just heard that, i heard that. (laughter) >> okay. that was a segment ender.

and there, i'm going to giv you the final word on that, actually. >> i think on this, this one we should all come do on the side of privacy, therere some things we just don't want to know and i think that's one of them. >> all right, the tide is moving. (laughter) thank you all. moving along, americans about their jobs and ting fewer days off from them and that's great news. the forbes gang explains at the top of the hour. but up next, take a look at this. that has no relation to what 're talking about next. we just like seeing buildings implode. actually, just when the housing market is looking up, is the government about to turn it upside down again wh a new@a

>> home not so sweet home? the white house is said to be looking into expanding a mortgage bailout program to include borrowers with loans not backed by the federal government. this coming, as the housing market is showing more signs it's slowly recovering its very own. charles, what will be the impact? >> well, here is the thing. i just found amazing that the sameovernment that was ushered into office by pulling out wout's recognizan--

wall street's reckless behavior. not only homes not backed by the the federal government, but hos deeply underwater. i'd like toee the private industry in this more and loved to see the home prices hitt terra firma earlie but there'a certain desperation out there. we sort of housing hit terra firma, but millions of homes underwater and millions of buyers an't stepping up to the play and it might be a sign of desperation, also. >> ben, if the housing market showing signs of life. why does the federal government need to get more involved than it is. >> it's showing signs of fe, t probably less than half of what it was in early 2007, 2008. it'sucless stronger than a year ago, six months ago, a year and a half ago, but it's flaccid, to use a word i don't like to hear, when we talk

about what it should be and i don't think there's any reason why ne shouldn'tet it-- bout you the losses if the market recovers will be trivial if not nil and good that more and more peopl are employed in construction. >> sir, we already control the taxpayer and the federal gornment, we alrdy control the mortgage market. why do we need to take on more risk? >> because we're not taking-- >> i'm sorry, i thought-- >> i said sarah. ben, i'll get back to you. >> i'm a little miffed. we want to see more people living in homes and these aren't the best mortgages to take on, but the risks are measured in multiple ways and seen in most cases a willingness and ability on the part of the lender to be able to pay their mortgage. now, their house may be underwater, but it's more portant to have someone living if thatome, have a mortgage paid on that home than that home be vacant because it devalues those around it and hopefully designedo help us get past just being on solid ground and

back to a more robust market. >> todd, may we're never going to get back to the heights that we were at one point. >> we're so jad and the recent data is positive. only a fool would go out and buy a home. 's better burning the cash, you're not going to have any equity in one year from now. secondly you need the government involved. >> the government isinvolved. >> guys. >> we own the-- >> and ancillary problems that go along with this poisoned housing market right now, i'm sick and tired of hearing whether the government should get involved or not. and they're not involved. and. >> theare involved. >> schools, fire departments, local government when houses go under, you can't have it. >> the gernment controls the entire mortgage market. we own fannie mae and freddie mac, now, we're venturing out to control more of it. >> right. it makes zero cents. >> got to take full control, guys. listen, you want to penalize something, go after the home owners for building up the inventories, when they're doing it and going into

consumer sentiment numbers and giving false reading. >> fuelly not enough inventory right now to meet demands, but anyway, ben, final word. >> todd, if you can predict the future and value of any important commodity my hat's off toou. >> thanks, ben, i appreciate that. look, i respect you, too, going forward in the housing market right now, i don't know where you're getting your data from, dagen, there's no chance of that. tons of homes are available, especially the underwater homes. call a bank if you want to buy a hou and nobody'oing it. >> of the inventory problem with peoe who want to buy newr slightly used homes and heard it from every realtor and the data bears it out. ben, love you. you stay there, i have to thank sarah flowers, thanks for being here. up next, see this guy? if you're listening back in june you'd be up around 40%. find out his best pick of 2012 and his top tee names for the new year.