>> the only thing lazy here is you and that bone head prediction. >> you know who is not lazy? the hardest working man on tv, neil cavuto, up next cuts of this size made this quickly, lose jobs, slow the growth of our economy. >> sequestration, which has already kicked in, will get worse. >> there is only one way to truly fix the sequester, by replacing it before it causes further damage. >> so much for the further down. so much for any damage. glad to have you. i'm neil cavuto. the economy apparently laughing in the face of all that sequestration devastation. those $85 million in automatic spending cuts, not cutting into the job market. not by a long shot. the government reporting 165,000 jobs are added in april. get this, the two prior months were revised to show 100,000 more americans working than

originally reported. so what to make of that sequestration once again, especially since we didn't see any obamanation at all. ben stein, dagen mcdowell, adam, charles payne, what do you think? >> neil, look, it's about time, really before we start, someone in washington needs to start reminding americans how great this country is. every time i see these, it's like we're the 80 pound weak ling. the last thing that will hurt us is the government having fiscal restraint. you want to talk about what's hurt us, higher taxes. no one out there wants to hear about 2%, how ownerous this is when the american public, the household debt is $1.3 trillion the hard way. so it's about time. remind us how great we are. >> it is interesting that march and april, the two months for which the sequestration effects were in, not much pain at all. >> no. not at all. and for february and march,he

jobs numbers were revised higher by a combined 114,000. there were 332,000 jobs created in the month of february. so it shows that democrats and republican politicians will say anything, even if they know it's not true, to get what they want, even when they don't, they're still going to suck their thumbs about it. i wanted to point out in terms of all the policy uncertainty in the last couple years, vanguard's ceo wrote an op ed that said $261 billion has been taken out of this economy because of uncertainty. that's $800 per person. so if that won't wake people up and get washington to do something long run and permanent, i don't know what will. >> ben stein, there are a lot of things effecting investors' moods. apparently these cuts in the scheme of things, small as they are, were the least of them. what do you think of that? >> well, i agree. investors are in an extreme will

he buoyant mood. we dot know what the jobs would have been like without the sequestration. maybe there would have been even more jobs without the sequestration and the thing that worries me, neil, isot so much the jobs picture, the defense picture. i heard senator mccain say that all of the heads of the uniformed services say they can not defend the country with the sequestration. if that's true, it's extremely serious. >> ademeanor? >> -- adam? >> i want to applaud charles' optimism. i've been trying to get you to be more optimistic for months now, charles. a huge pat on the back. >> i laugh, adam, because i wear rose colored glasses, but i do point out when things are bad as well. >> when you do, it looks odd, by the way. [ laughter ] >> go ahead. >> ben stole some of my thunder because we have to be statistically fair here if the sequestration hadn't happened, maybe there would have been even greater job creation, but the point is, the economy is doing

fairly well. hooray for our economy. the sequestration has been terrible policy and remember, many of the effects have been on furloughs. not job eliminations. so those wouldn't get counted as job losses, which may partly explain these numbers. >> the point, adam, the real point is that we didn't crash and burn because that's what we were promised. >> thank you for bringing it back. >> it's not how good it could have been of the the fact it wasn't an unmitigated disaster. >> i think dagen, to that point, it was -- the way the sequestration cuts were greeted and i don't deny the impact they had on the defense industry. i will point out that in the scheme of things, $85 billion, which is really half that and most of it over ten years, if we're to the point where that gets to be so arduous and onerous in the $17 trillion debt, we will never get serious about anything. so my only issue with even

raising it and then the markets apparently sort of play say reaction doing it is we shouldn't be afraid to cut. >> right. we will experience some pain, but if it's done well and right, it doesn't have to be. >> not that these are ideal. they were, to put it -- steal a line from mitt romney, inelegant at best. but there was something better than nothing. >> you know what's going to be even more painful than this? this is bad policy just because the cuts were quilly nilly. what will be more painful is one day you wake up and interest rates have skyrocketed and you're having trouble just making the payments on your debt. and people act like that will never happen. and it can and it very might will. >> it could. go ahead, adam. >> i will jump over to the other side of this argument, which is to say that there is something constructive here. i mean, none of us, we all agree, we don't like the way that this happened. but the fact is, originally the

sequestration scheme was bipartisan. i mean, the whole congress agreed to it. if we can't get a budget by this time -- >> itit was. >> so we are having a constructive debate about cutting the budget in a way that we have to cut it. i applaud that. i think that's worth doing >> it's constructive debate. it's like a constructive diet resolution. unless you act on it, you're still fat. >> reacting on it in a small way. >> ben stein? >> i'm puzzled by what my heart throb, dagen, said about what connection any of this has with higher interest rates for consumers. i would love it if she would explain that. >> what the sequestration? my point is people don't like the way that these cuts went into place, ben. the government will be forced to really seriously and deeply cut if we don't deal with this debt

sooner rather than later. that it will be -- that we could be hit with a sudden spike in interest rates that could force -- >> would we be hit by the cuts -- the dollar would be impacted. interest rates would be skyrocketing if we didn't do that? >> the cost of debt is a fixed price, fixed by the federal reserve. so it has only to do with what the federal reserve does. >> i think -- what if you all of a sudden switched it around and so that we had no spending resolve and then all of a sudden, you know, the gig is up and interest rates skyrocket. >> right. >> buthe federal reserve can fix prices of interest. so that's a fixed price. >> but in the open market, we're letting things slip away and that the game is over. that has been -- >> but it is a fixed price and when it stops being a fixed price, interest rates will rise a lot whether there is a sequestration or not. >> all right. i don't want to get too academic. i think it's important.

i do think, you're right in this respect, dagen. i want to follow it up with you, charles, that if we find out that cuts like this aren't that onerous and we feel and have the gumption to do substantial cuts down the road, then i think that's for the good. to dagen's point, charles, if we don't, i think safe in our system will -- faith in our system will erode and i think interest rates will rise. >> we're talking about the stock market as something of a proxy on this thing and the most difficult period for the stock market in the last three years was the debt ceiling debate. it was resolved, but the pack of the matter is the world saw us as not being able to fix something that should have been fixable. o again, to dagen's point, if we don't have the ability to do 2% now and ultimately it's going to have to be 10%, imagine what our debt rating would be, imagine where the world will be. it wouldn't be pretty, i don't think. >> i don't have as much faith in the federal reserve. i worry, very, very much that

they could turn on a dime and interest rates could skyrocket and very quickly. >> hand to you and ben? is the love gone? >> not at all, not at all. >> smooches. >> smooches back. from april showers to may snow, the midwest getting a spring whiteout. while the administration is still at pushing us green agenda, some are saying, wait. a snow job? >> i would like to survive long enough to see the effects of global warming. >> i got an inside tip that it's all a bunch of@í foxnews.com 24.

you're looking at a winter wonderland? think again. it's a spring wonderland and everyone is wondering what happened to it because this storm ripping through the midwest continues a the that already is making this about the coldest spring on record thus far. families are looking at soaring heating bills as it is. all of this coming with the white house holding a public hearing on new proposed fuel rules to fight global warming. critics saying it's going to cost consumers big time. charles, time to put this agenda on ice? >> it's time to put the coo bash on this whole thing. i think it's up. here is the interesting thing, guys. thecontradictions from the administration, they invest a lot of money into electric cars and stuff like this, but by the same token, they're talking about slowing down our fracking. so natural gas prices will go up

and we'll buy more coal. or howbout this contradiction? you got these electric cars, but you also are pushing higher cafe standards. people are going out and a regular car with get 1 -- i mean, the whole thing is a nutty, crazy thing! this other thing called cold weather, that puts a little bit of a kabash on it in my mind, it's ridiculous. >> you don't seem to like the white house very much. >> the easter egg thing is great. >> dagen? >> i think there is a fixation by some in the white house with forcing americans to drive the cars and behave the way that they think we should behave. drive the cars that they want us to drive. that is the only way that this new epa regulations they're trying to push through, low sulfur gasoline, would make any sense. it would drive gas prices higher when we were already dealing with 3.52 is the national average. you know what's got to cry them

crazy at the white house? the biggest boost, biggest selling vehicles in this country, still your ford, gm. >> these big old gas guzzlers. >> f-150, baby. >> that's right. number within. >> adam has that f-150. what do you make of this? bad timing? optics? was that the term they used? >> the snow storm? i think we could have a conversation about what is the best way to approach global warming. we do not want to have a conversation -- >> don't call it warming. let's just call it weather changes. >> but that's the crux of the matter. it is a warming and the fact that there is may snow storms doesn't change the science. >> adam, this wasn't you, but i can remember having an environmentalist on this show when it was warm and when it got warmer and said this is going to be the thing. you might as welcome in your bermuda shorts next winter and all of a sudden, that didn't happen. but they were wrong. >> they can add -- they can't

admit they're wrong, that's all i'm saying. >> i would say i'm not one of those environmentalists, obviously. i think we need to be very careful to avoid single data points like the weather in may of 2013 or whatever the weather was when you were having that conversation. >> when it gets warm, that's when we use global warm. whatever term suits you, i like weather challenged than fact. i'm just saying, you can call it anything you want, but maybe they're just wrong. >> well, it is, in fact, warming and so i don't know -- i don't oppose fracking. i don't think forcing people to drive electric cars is the solution. but we do need a solution to global warming 'cause that's a fact. >> we're showing you pictures from this week. what do you think? >> it's all like orwell's 1984, big brother, that has

environmentalists saying there's a climate change. there is climate change. don't worry about the data and the fact that there are hundreds of eminent scientists on climate change who says climate change is a, nowhere near as bad as the other guys say, and b north texas caused by man and man's activities. so the white house simply has an ideological position on this. it's not necessarily a scientific position. and it can't be changed by data. it can only changed by political will. >> you say it actually is, adam. but there are a great many e extremely imminent scientists who say it is. >> i'm just telling you. >> every point of view, when it is in some dispute and it is not unanimous, i think it borders on lunacy then to commit billion, dare i say it, trillions of dollars to something that might not be as it is. >> here is the irony of it. we're a very small portion of the world's population. we're talking about solving

global warming. the fast's source of fuel in the world is coal. china is not going to stop building. india is not, brazil. the rest of the world is nipping at our heels economically. >> dagen? >> i think charles is right and i think that there is a lack of attention to the cost on the american people of these policies. the people who don't want to drive electric cars. the people who just want to use old regular gasoline engines, god forbid. >> you feel guilty now, adam? >> very guilty, neil. >> okay. good. when we come back, the homeownership rate in america, 17-year low. that's great news for america? that's a flip side you'll only hear from my friends at forbes at the top of the hour. but up next -- >> i love this so much!

>> i know you do. >> one company making sure mommy and daddy won't be crying by giving them lots of free time with a new baby. good for the family. how about the economy

>> old baby, yahoo is not kidding around. it's trying to keep its top

talent. it's doubling the time workers can take off for maternity and paternity leave. new moms getting 16 weeks. dads getting eight weeks. what do you think? >> did new dads start lactating and i didn't know about it? >> i have no idea. >> why do they need eight weeks of maternity leave? >> why did you have to start lactating on me? go ahead. >> why does a man need to be at home with the women or the ones who did all the hard work? why do the men need eight weeks? >> hello? hello? helped make them. hello? fathers have feelings. >> anything i say beyond this will get me into troble. but i will add, marissa -- >> that's a vy exist comment. ben stein was right to fight with you at the outset of this show. >> power to the ladies. >> ben, what do you think of that position? just double up the time for men and women, moms and dads?

>> yahoo does not have a shortage of talented mothers in its work force. it has a shortage of profits and earnings. i think the attention of miss myer should return to getting earnings off that very fine company instead of getting points from the women's lobby. >> ooo. adam, what do you think? >> this is very straightforward. she's trying to keep up with google, her former employer, which offers very generous maternity and paternity benefits. silicon valley is a talent war. that's what she's trying to do. it's a smart move. dagen, the three weeks that i spent with my newborn daughter were some of the best times -- best weeks of my life. i wish it were eight weeks. it would have made me even more loyal to my employer. >> if a company can afford to dole out that kind of time, like a facebook, google facebook, you get four months, to both the mother and the father, if they can afford to do it, then do it. i don't think that most companies could get away with it >> charles, i spent that amount

of time with my daughter and she forgot it all. >> i agree with dagen. from an economic -- >> not on the lactate thing? >> well -- >> you don't lactate -- >> the bottom line, for the economy, it's nuts. she could afford it. maybe yahoo could afford it. but economically, two weeks max for t father. >> proud of yourself, dagen? sorry. my thanks to dagen. love, love dagen. usually goes up, usually comes down, including stocks. we know the market has been soaring. our gang on how to keep your we went out and asked people a simple question: how old is the oldest person you've known?

we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed: the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪

approximate >> well, it is it a new rage. companies paying more dividends and so which one should you own, charles? >> i, buy it on weakness. >> adam? >> classic way is with the utilityings. xlu is a utility. >> ben how would you play this? >> xdy. >> do you like the market and do you think it will go like this? >> not forever. i like it. i will not get out of it >> >> not forever. mark that down. >> i am kidding.

>> stay in this market and buy any dip. >> the idea i love. sell high. i am here for you. i am kidding. >> the jobless rate may be ticking down a bit but 12 million americans still out of work, unemployment benefits are way up. one state want to make it tougher for them to push the bill to ban benefits for workers and misconduct and missing too many days. proponents say this will protect benefits for people who deserve them. are they right or wrong. >> i am dave asbin. welcome to forbes on fox. we'll go with steve, and rick and rich and john and sabrina and mike. mike, is this a good law? >> david, i am not familiar with the precise details of the law. one thi