the short. >> you think it is ver. >> i believe so. i think rates will go higher. nfan the cost of freedom continues. ♪ >> a battle erupt nothing dc over keeping america from becoming a full- blown welfare state. republicans are trying to turn back time and overhaul the food stamp program. recent reports showing that more than two and half million who get it are young, single childless and healthy adults that are not working. some say we need to scrap this cornerstone of welfare before we go down the weareitate town. we'll go in focus with steve, rich, morgan, and rick and john

and mike. rich, scrap food stamps as we know it? >> we really do. we have to protect it for the people who need it. no one wants to see undernourished children or older folks eating dog food. if we cover the cost of two and half million people who are healthy anon food stamps and working age, we have an unsustainable progra we have disability claims rise by 7 million in obama's te nure. nrick, when millions of people are gettg welfare and don't deserve. it >> i am all for keeping a good eye on welfare. when we talk about food stamps. schopercent of the people of

people on food stamps have one person working andadd into what is legitimate and i take rich's point. not everyone on disality should be. if you add that up. it goes up to 85 percent. you have to be so careful you are not so intent on cutting you cut people who needit. >> many people here have it here. and evy time we have welre reform people attack. it in known 96 president clinton was attacked forrepublican refo the late senator said poor children would be reduced to begging for money and food and engaging in prostitution. guess what, that welfare worked and brght down poverty i this country. >> yeah, none of that happen.

there is nothing about growth in constitution and empowering federal politicians to fight poverty. that is for a good reason. it should be a local initiative. it should be private charities. but the broader point, we have spent trillions over the last four decades fighting the war on poverty. that is a sursignal that the federal goverent is unbeatable. >> and one of the things in the weare reform. it brought down poverty. we have had dips in poverty like neverbefore but never a sustainable drop since it began in 193 >> i am wide open to reform in food stamps and just to be fair, voted down house bill had 20 billion worth of spending cuts in it. we are putting the cart before the horse. we have 12 million americans

unemployed and millions more that are underemployed. when you break down the numbers, it comes to 4.40 a day. that is less than a value of a mcdonald's meal. >> i know we have evidence, but there is evidence to back up the fact that a lot of people who get it don't deserve it. people were buying snacks and potato chips and ewing gum with the card. >> it underscores when we get reform, you have to have a better economy like we had in the mid1990s. this kind of ing should be closed and folded and other welfare programs like for the seniors and supplement income programs and let people make their own choices instead of having them grow willy-nilly on their own.

unfortunately this president will not provide it. it is useful to provide a foundation. >> in fact, the republicans laid the ground work over years before and trying to come up with something spectacular like for example entitlements in cash. five year term limit on benefit disciplines have mothers cash benefit reduced or eliminated. a lot of things can be prepared and maybe somebody in the white house amenable to welfare reform will do. >> we'll so what happen in the '90s and the policies with the labor par tisipation rate. it is normally what you see in a recession. >> we have sewn the food stamps growing to 80 percent. they say it is because of the

severity of the recession or a president who believes in weal fair policies? nwell, it is both and they create an unholy a liiance and why we are stuck at two percent growth and new people on disability and two and half million people taking food stamps who should not be there. look, if we had four percent grow, what we should be having following the recession, throw hured billion i year more of incremental activity and this would lift the labor participation. i think you have to start with growthnd this president is not pro growth. >> even fdr as started it warned about dependency. to many people getting welfare is not a good thing. >> i will go you one better. i agree with part of what you said a moment ago when you

pointed out that people shod not be using the snap benefits and buy candy. fo stamps should be for a necessity and nourishments. i am wiith you there. budon't get to carried away. you end up hurting people. >> i know. sotimes people get hurt when you are getting back on your feet. but you are foesed to. >> there is a reform issue. people on nap can't get access to vegetables and fruits. ta about candy because they cat afford the bag of lettuce. >> i don't buy that at all. >> and there was a year when i di't have enough work and i had to eat soybeans for $0.87 a day and i turned out to be healthy. i ate soy beeps and fruits and

vegetables. if you want to sustain yourself and if you are healthy, you can do it. >> the one thing that led to assault on food stamps the administration discouraged it. and they want more and just the numbers and what is creating the back lash. >> and there is sort of a vicious circle. more people on welfar and me people fall nothing t-- falling in the dependency trap. >> europe fell in that. republicans lost the moral authority in this movement because they increased the subsidies to wealthy farmiers. that took a lot away. >> i think we all agree with that. >> i do, and a lot of focus on president obama for ballooning the food stamps.

it started balloons und george bush. >> and everybody, let'agree. hold on a second. everybody is to blame. but john, everybody could get together for reform as they did in known 96. a republican bill and a emocratic president signed off on it. >> they could. but the problem is neither party understand how to get economy grow. getting back to rick's point and the fraud thing. if you localized benefits, is a lot harder for people to buy candy with it. the problem is benefits handed out from washington. is it any wonder you can see it happening. >> thank you very much. coming up next, critics calling it a desperate ploy for sales. more retailers are refusing to carry the rolli stone issue. did that ploy back four.

>> i was surprised and disgusted and irresponsible for rolling stones to put that picture on th

i am jamie colby we'll see it back here at 1 o'clock eastern. cope it on fox. >> youre encouraging them by putting them on rolling stone. >> you are glamorizing terrorism. >>t is despicicable to put him on there. >> why would they put it on the

cover. >> it endorses hate and violence and should be stopped. >> more back lash on the rolling stone cover that appears to put the bomber on as a celebrity. retailers are refusing to carry it. you favor a boycott? >> yes tis not what you put on the cover. but how. they wouldn have done that to george zimmerman. by contrast look at what time magazine what they me adopt hitler as man of the year. and shed him turning out a hymnal of hate and they called joel. and they did it the ong way. >> some of the description. gele demeanor and he had morals of golden person and

noise commriant and pillow soft kid and he was too sweet. you and i know you can choose whichuotes to put. my feeling is they are trying to paint him as a victim and not a criminal. >> i haven't read the story. and they ought toous the word monster. for all ofus, our hearts and prayers continue to go out for the victims and families in boston and that were touched by the tragedy. the concept of a poi cot. if it was a preinternet age. i would be concerned because it would limit american's access. but we are in the internet age. stores have a right to boycott andmericans can boycott. and rolling stones have a right to put it on the cover. we are continuing the conversation and by default we are pushing the marketing the

cover out. >> that is a good explanation. >> are you for a boycott? >> i continui is up tohe stores. i think morgan put it well. the stores are not the government and so it is not a censorship issue. the biggest problem with the cover. and rolling stone can do as they plose. i haven't read the article. but the problem i have. the same photowassoused in the new york times and yet put the two of them together and so they have glamorrized the photo. that is journalistical not right. nrich, i read the article. theyoosed tup and made it softer and gentler. but the descriptions of the gay are way oaf the top. >> i don't understand the left's love of violence and french

emacing the camboddian murderers in the '60s or embracing the oklahoma city bomber. this is what people should do. write to the advertisers and corporate officers and board of directors and write to every advertiser and said is this what you stand for and are these your values in>> this is something very commercial. did the ploy work? have we talked about it enough. >> the good thing and redoming thing about a boycott and a competitive economy that the power is limited. what would be scary if someone had monoply power and i don't like the politics of your owner and you can't get a permit in my city. >> john, is a boycott necessary or not? >> rolling stones is a private enitiy.

if it want it on the cover it is fine. it works both ways i think. >> and businesses had nothing to do with the verdict. they are finding themselves in a violent. why is capitalism unr attack. and you want to quit shelling out green in the pump. some say get rid of the

>> ouch. pain hitting drivers everywhere. natial average for gas jumping $0.20 a gallon. law makers are holding a hering and looking into how to ease the pain. start by scrapping government man dates and have green biofeels to gas. rich, are they on to something? >> they are on to manage. this will not immediately reduce the price of gas in the pump. that goes up and down. and it is ridiculous. the govement is cramming more and more ethynol in the gas lone. and forcing oil companies to squander their energies. oil excutives do have a point.

nrich, you just came from california and they do it more than most states. >> it is how to distract our attention from the real issues. i don't mind ifyou want to look at it as a solution. many things could bring down the price of gas. it is july and august. two peak times of year for driving. prices go up every year this time and to add to it, you have had problems in the refiners. >> people are suffering out there, stove. >> even al goal can't defend ethynol. and it adds to expense and maintenance. and get rid of them. big thing on gasoline taking out the lead. the rest of the stuff is a waste of money. nmike, we have opinion arguing

about it for years. here at forbes talking about what a waste of money the biofouls are. maybe it is a perfect political moment. david, it destroysarburetor and adds to cost. what i am more irate. it forces poor people to starve. it goes to the biofuels and it causes food prices up. that is most destructive. >> bill, what do you think? >> ethynol deletes run off and jumps up the price of chicken and oh, wait a minute, enriches iowa wacorn farmers that are worth $10 million. >> and stove, that is a great point. it increases price of gas and food. >> absolutely.

and bill just hit on it. >> iowa has the first caucus and why candidates is in favor of ethynol. wasn't which is why i am here. >> what do you think? there are some democrats looking and saying maybe we should get on the bandwagon. >> just like the republicans and senators from iowa that have defended ethynol for years. it is political. wouldn't deny it for a second. but there is a lot of things oil companies could do to bring down the price if they wanted to. >> temperature outside is hot, hot, hot. and our informers have stocks that are hotter. names rising with the mercury

>> we are bavenlth -- back. >> chip maker with smart phones. nmike, you like it? >> don't buy it. competition is causing it to collapse. >> you like key cop. >> i don't truck banks financials. >> you like williams companies? >> natural gas weighs a lot. nmorgan, you like williams? >> they have earnings per share to it drop next year.

>> boy, you guys are good. eric bowling continue.bowling >> why is capitalism under attack here. uncle sam trekking yourer move by zooming in on your license plate. and they are storing your into. cashin' in pututting you in the driver's seat right now. >> wayne, and johnathon and bob and jamushgs.