the policy seems to be benefiting superrich rather than our vanishin middle class. that is. neil: more jobs on maintreet. more money on wall street, man oh, man, we must be on easy street because everyone seems to be loving it. everyone that is except the folks who say they aren't seeing it, any of it, and they're mad and they're bitter and they're here an only here. welcome, everybody, i'm neil cavuto. fox on top of a economy that appears to be goldilocks, just right. not too strong, not too weak, good enough to keep the fe printing and jobs coming and unemployment rate dropping and keeping stoc humming and big business guys hoping. talk after cut in taxes for them. part after grand bgain that will supposedly benefit eveone

and soon, everyone that is except small business guys who seem to be collectively asking, what about us? why have we been left out of all this week's fun, guys? you can't blame them for bng a a little bitter, right? they weren't ones offered big tax cuts this week. they were not ones that wer told their rates could be slashed to 25%. lot of them are stuck paying close to 40%. no one in washington offering them break o so much as a bone. wonder why they are ticked and wonder why they are here and wonder why they want to vent. three of my favorite small business salt of the earth guys jumped at chance to set things straight a baker, caterer and pr exutive. trying trying to make end meet and trying to figure out a washington that seems to forget they're even there. they're all withth me now. i love these guys. david mack cart r at thursday, ker, butch somalind small biz pr expert got fame housley

in the big guy's face. patty bruglio. you haveo fear with all the attention to the biguys and not you guys. whato you think if. >> i think it's a wrong. i'm for corporate america getting tax cuts. great for the big guys but problem is they're all c corps where most of us are s corp.s. so our revenue flows down individually. so we're tacked at individua rate. that is just wrong. if they gaveus the tax cut we could go out and do things like hire people and buy new equipment and invest in our business. but, no, they're not going to do that. ne: a lost you pay at the top rate anywa that top individual rate. that is almost 40%. you know, butch, that it means, that in week we're handing out favorses and benefits and nice little promises and goodies, you got left out. >> when will it stop, neil? i'm afraid to open a newspaper. i read it about other day. i called my accountant. what does i mean for you?

it means you're paying 12% less than you are. isn't that ridiculous. with 12% more money hire two people with benefits all year long or put people to work and buy more equipment. corporations doesn't need that. we need this. neil: small business accounts foremost of the hiring in this country and most of the economic activity. to patty's point, david, i don't mind certainly big business offer ad break, but it would be uncouple bent upon those in power to offer everybody a break. >> that would make the playing field levelings okay? small business doesn't have lobbies in washington and who is big business, biggest competitor? small business. i don't know, neil. it's not a fairlayground anymore. neil: so you think, that is interesting. you think this was deliberate act to sort of put you in a corner? >> who spend time on the golf course with the president? small business or big business? do the math. something's wrong. neil: who serves bakery products for both? that would be you, my friend. >> i thank you.

we keep struggling to do it. but i mean this has gotten past the point, this guy during the election talks about small business being the backbone of amica. small busiss being the people that are going to hire and do all the employment numbers. bi business is the evil bad guy. big business needs to pay more taxes. you know what? he gets elected what happens? this massive, backflip off the high dive. come on! something's going too deep here you know? it is like both patty and butch said. if i had tt kind of money, what am i going to do? i'm going to buy equipment. i'm going to buy a new truck. i will give my people a raise. that money instantly goes back into the economy, the american economy. it doesn go to big business. that is paying investors overseas that are taking thes huge profits and going through loopholes to begin with and so frustrating you would like to put it all in a box fold the corners and go to work for somebody else. neil: man, oh, man. patty, this is interesting. it is same week a lot of workers were demanding that the minimum

wage be doubled to $15. how would that affect you at yo shop if you had to do that? >> well, you know what? we're going to start a whole country of just part-time people at the rate we're going because, you do tt and then what is going to happen? you can't afford to pay people. they tried this what, 20 years ago in denver. guess what happened? all the businesses said you go ahead d pass that. what we'll do is move out of the city of denver and we'll go into the suburbs. this is ridiculous. i disagree with the fact that they are intentionally doing this to us. i think there is such a huge disconnect in washington that it doesn't even occur to them because there is nobody up there who really understands business. so they, they don't care. i thi they're giving them way too much credit. neil: there is lot what you s because when you talk about sort of the cluelesess doubling minimum wageor example, and thinking that, if you had to pay your workers that, it would be the same as mcdonald's paying that or burger king or wendy's

as if you're all on en scale here. >> ridiculous. tough raise your prices to do that. it would take a way a whole group of people that couldn't work for anybody, students, college kids. you're going to pay them double the minimum wage? how could you afford to have them? a whole grouof people would have no jobs. neil: you see the market, butch, having a great month of july, picking up steam in august. you know, the wind is seemingly at the business's back. you still are facinghe headwinds. why do people not know that? >> we don't know what to expect? we're out there flapping around. we don't know what will hit us. reduce the cost of taxes 28% what will it cost us? take away accelerated depreciation? will they raise the minimum wage? what is the deal with obamacare? we're like on holding pattern, wondering what will happen. neil: you reminded me about obamacare. david, that brings up a issue, a lot of big boys seen it delayed another year before they have to implement it. >> sure. neil: where and how are you affected by that?

because the same does not apply to you. >> w now, we have right at 42, 43 employees right now, full-time. so we're under the 50 number. the one thing for sure is, we won't, if i can get some money to do some things what i won't do is open another store because now i'm going to be over the 50 nuer. neil: so you're doing everything you can, just to be clear, you're doing everything you can to keep under that number -- >> sure you do. neil: it will wallop you if you do, right? >> you have no idea. what it does take your ability to have some control over your policy now to what the government's going to tell you 100% what your policy has to be. that policy sun affordable at our rate of doing business. i think the is the same way with small business all over. but, you know, i is pathetic. here we have a law. let's pick and choose what parts of the law we want to pass, apply and when, state them. what a mess. you know, hear what patty said. it is pathetic to assume these

people are this stupid. he i say maybe they do it on this purpose maybe i give them the benefit of the doubt to think they have a little it about of intelligence. they're the same people that skipped out on economics or something. i don't know where it is going. neil: patty, to your point, at very list they have a tin earo a lot of your problems here. i'm thinking health care law, thinking what y're shop and trying to do. when i hear so many busins types of all types, of all sizes saying they are actually controlling the size of their workforce, because they don't want to hit a number that would compel them to offer health care or f that matr, to bite the bullet and pay a penalty, so because it's cheaper than offering them health care, me thinks we have some big ol' problems tt go beyond just small business, guys. >> we've got a lot of unintended consequences that are going to come up. one of which, yes, people will not want to grow over 50 employees. oh, by the way they will not hire full-time employees anymore.

they will hire 29 hour a week people so they don't have to pay them health care. we'll start a whole nation of part-time people. and then you sit there an then you say, also the uncertainty of, well, we passed this law but the president doesn't really like parts of the law, he doesn't have to follow it. he just says, you know, never mind. we're not going to arrest those, anybody who is her illally and owe, by the way we'll put this off for another year with health care, and so there's all this uncerinty. how can anybody plan because we don't know what he is going to do because the law doesn't apply to him. he does what h wants. it is not right. neil: guys, i say the same thing when i end this, hang in there. seems like an empty gesture. everyonelse seems to ignore u. we want to keep your concerns front and kent r center. not just becae david might get me a free cake now and thenhe bottom line i appreciate and understand your frustrations. guys until next time, be well. >> thanks, neil. >> thank you. neil: can you believe that. >> good to he sue, neil.

neil: same here. meanwhile if benghazi was a phony scandal then, why is there a real security threat now? the state department closing foreign embassiescross the middle east out of an abundance of caution, thanks to abundance of annoying dig from this network and fox news over very same warnings they ignored then but apparently not taking lightly now. see if the government finally decided nothing pny about our questions or our non-stop digging.

neil: this just in. something is up. we do not know the details. this mh we do.3 the state department closing foreign embassies all over the middle east, responding to what we're told were some unspecified threats but serious enough that out of quote, an abundance of caution, you heard that before. well they're shutting them down. it got us thinking here. could these have been the same threats, the same chatter and same noise we heard before the attacks on our benghazi compound 10 months ago? the attacks that left our ambassador and three others dead? the attacks whose timeline and pretty much only fox relentlessly followed to understand how an administration could have missed all the signals, all the noise, or worse, blatantly ignored the

now such questioning was deemed sillily, even phony. nothing phony about this threat apparently, very real and alive and well in the middle east now. so what has changed since? what has changed now. let's ask lieutenant colonel bob mcginnis. colonel, what has changed now? >> obviously fox has exposed some terrible problems that we had and not defending our consulate. we have, we, our consulates a our embays is have been attacked all over the world at various time tanzania and uganda back in '98 and of course more recently. we have probably some nsa intel, some sigint, there is some sort of collaboration among these franchise gups. it may have something to do with the end of ramadan this coming week and a variety of other activies. you know, they smell some blood in the water perhaps, some weaknesses that we have demonstrated. and now, out of abundance of

caution, as you indicate, neil, we are going to close things down. and i suspect, what you probably will not see, but is happening, is we're staging forward, in the european and african area of operations as well as central command. we have special operating forces ready to go to the aid of some of these embassies. you won't that out until something happens. neil: wish we had done that in benghazi but that is then, this is now. what is interesting about all the reports and you guys certainly know far more than i do you by see the name al qaeda popping up again and again and again. >> isn'that interesting. neil: i want to know your take on that? >> this is very interesting because this is an opportunity for the state department to dig themselves out of hole that fox news and other media outlets blown on ts scandal. the fact is, that if you look at the press release, released by the staae department this time around they're not afraid to mention the name and words,

al qaeda, and, you know, quite frankly, this is an opportunity for them, even if something doesn't happen, to say that they at least warned the american people that this was a possibility this time around. >> by the w we know it, at the very least, colonel, so much they're still not saying about benghazi about what happened and didn't happe and what chain of command knew and did not know but they were certainly loathe to mention al qaeda or even the word terrorist at that time. very different this time. what do you think chang? >>eah, well benghazi. of cours they had the al qaeda ag flying beforehand and all the indicators were there. we've become sensitized politically to how this can really backfire, neil. we saw what happed in algeria following the benghazi catastrophe. we've seen how egypt has imploded. we've seen what's happened in the negev, the sinai. we seen syria come apart, because, to a largeegree, i would aue, we ignored it for 2 1/2 years. iraq is disassembling.

of course iran is feeling its oats with regard to, you know, how it is intimidated us, with the help of the russis in the med. one thing after another. this is sad. neil: i sa again images of berning of barack obama in effigy and rowdy extremist groups acting up in any one of variety of countries. they did the same to george bsh and sure through the years a number about u.s. presidents. nothing changes. nothing changes. >> not at all. >> nothing ever changes. this is honestly just a ply for this administration to, like i said, dig them out of this hole because fox news and other media outlets have been willing to blow the lion this administration and lies they were telling and honestly, i honestly think, that the work that fox news has done, we will find answer what is happened on benghazi. and this is just a media ploy by this administration to cover

their track onheir past mistakes. il: i will give tip of the hat to the colonel here because he was a doubting thomas from the very beginning and refused to be silent on the matter. so the good that could have come out of it, colonel, the people at very least attuned to what you warned about. >> that's true, neil. what i hope now doesn't happen is that we don't put our young people, whether they're embassy or our young combatants at unnecessary risk. you know, these people we're fighting, we've been fighting for over a decade, they're killers. we should not hold fire when we know these people, you know, where they are, and we ought to pursue them, like benghazi people that are still on the loose, that are probably going to stage another hit if given the opportunity in tripoli against that consulate. we know at love these people. we need to go aer them. and we need to pursue them and until they're removed. neil: bottom line, tyon't seem to like us. colonel, celia, always good seeing you. >> thank you, neil.

neil: all be safehis weekend. meanwhwhile, so this is the guy who triggered the big ol' meltdown. this guy. the government sayshe is jt the start though. that bigger heads wil roll on wall street. but not in washington. does that sound fair and balanced to you? sounds more like a lopsided

neil: so this is the face of a meltdown. fabrice tourre, is a spitting image afterall street that spit on the little guy. so says the government and nw so says a federal jury finding the former goldman sachs trader defrauding investors by constantly misleading those investors and he aided and abetted companywide faud by gold man itself that came crashing down during the financial crisis.

now the government reportedly going after bank of america to see what role it played bringing on the same crisis. no talk yet of going after folks that provided environment for them to do these awfully and wicked things brought on said crisis. congress, government, white house, treasury, fed. turnedousing not into a goal but darn near birthright. is going after just bankers right? charles payne and melissa francis say something ain't right. melissa. >> there is so much blame to go around here. focus on traders final. maybe they did something wrong. how about people that filled out formssfor liar loans. what about banks didn't do due diligence that resold the loans. how about goldman sachs that repackaged and soiled them to the government. in some cases yes, and many charles, i remember the community reinvestment act. i watched as it was debated.

it was to get more people in homes. birth of no-loc loan, where housing you came something stro for but something handed to you. i'm not saying to, melissa's poini think is dead on tre are plenty culpable parties but the government and all its entities are a huge part of it. congress what it push ad big part of it. >> you create ad yucca mountain to put all these bad loans. can't have a bad loan. banks won't create them unless they had someplace to put them. unless you had fannie mae and freddie mac. to your point, community reinvestment act whent started had good goals, but put on steroids by bill clinton ton. homeownership has gone up. talk about getting reelected f you tell the american public that homeownership gone uput bill clinton turned into something that became a beast, animal. it sucked up everything. banks, and it was a compromise with the banks. banks saying listen we understand you want us to invest in certain communities but what

do we do with all the bad loans? don't worry we've got an idea for you. fannie mae, freddie mac we'll change charters. most we'll dump in there. what you can't dump in there neil: i don't understand why five yrs later we're looking for culpritow. maybe pound of flesh to go after bank of america. the nextwave will be huge fines and rest. what do you make of it? >> you hear all the time how many years after the financial crisis no one, no banker is in jail. neil: need that head on a stick. >> after everything that happened. reallies son is you're the only one responsible for your financial future. you can't tst what the government is telling you and shoving down your throat. you can't trust a banker. can't rely on anyone. you have to understand finances. tough keep an eye on your ow nest egg as if it is one of your own children. understand when does home ownership make sense for you and when does it not? value of the home wl not go up fast enough to make it make sense for the cost. neil: for a while it did. >> yh. neil: now woe have victim type

of culture, you gotten into this so many times, charles, everyone felt, wait a minute, sure i earn $50,000 a year and getting 2 million-dollar mortgage, what's wrong with that? normal, reasonable, rational people would step back and alize, hey, i'm part of this. >> back then we all felt like a real housewife of new jersey i guess. here is what people honestly did, neil. i know, thi is dirty little secret about all of this, everyone talks about the loans and rates went higher. >> yeah. >> maybe majority. i know over 50% people defaulted before the rates even changed. the home will increase in value. i will get the raise in march. people rationalized themselves. gets back to melissa's point. about bing honest with yourself and being accountable that is the thing we're allowing t go away, by only pointing to wall street and saying these are only ones -- neil: responsibility. >> takeome responsibility and accountability because the fact is most of the people went into knowing it didn't make sense on paper but thought they could

ke it work. >> absolutely. i myself made money i housing. i lost money in housing. we have to all look at consequences and look at potential there before you make the investment and not just assume because you see the person across the street makin money and your mbs you have to understand the details. neil: good point. we live in a society of victims. whole weight thing? thyroid condition you remember i got into the midd of republican food fight between rand paul and chris christie? turns out democrats have internal heart and soul battle going on, much bigger.

>> we'll have to patch things up, if we can sit down, i'm inviting him for a beer anytime he would lik to come down and sit down at the pub, right ound the corner from the senate. neil: have you heard anything on that ensite? >>xcuse me? neil: have you heard anything on that invite? >> it hasn't been formalized. i just thought of it. >> just now. >> we'll formalize and put it in writing. neil: by now you know that chris christie turned down rand paul's invite for the bruschi. by now you know that everyone pounced on that tip as a sign the republican party has a major war going on within its ranks. apparently not just republicans. growing indication as number of democrats are getting antsy, repelling against nancy pelosi urging them to push benefits of health care law they think is a suicidal mission going into next

year's midterm electio so how big are these respective party squabbles? and does it really decide who settles them sooner? former arizona republican senator, jon kyl, former north dakota senator, byron dorgan. senator doug began, i would like to goin with you. this nancy posi dust-up seems to get traction with members concererned they're on a walking off the plank thing with this health care law. are they? >> i don't think that's much of a story honestly. the story that i had read in one of the journal was about some frequenter men. freshmen come here. they're always nervous what they can or can't do. so you lose some freshmen votes on some things. nancy pelosi in most cases had a pretty unified caucus on the big issues. neil: yaw, but this is unpopular issue, senator with a lot -- in the country the president claimed it is because republicans are constantly bemoaning the health care law but the fact of the matter i think it is higher premiums are

scarin off avege americans. not so much what republicans saying about it. do those democrats, freshmen or otherwise to your point, have a point? >> in addition to some higher premiums in some areas, there are rebates to other consumers around the country. this is a big signature issue for the president. the fact is, this affordable care act or obamacare will be around for a while, probably it's permanent. as long as this president is in the white house. when t is implemented, much of thattthe next few years, it's going to be around for a long while in my judgment. il: senator kyl, let me switch around to your party's woes and whether we're making too big of a deal on it whether security and privacy issues the like, it seems to opened up a wound within the party making nice beeen the likes of rand paul and chris christie isn't changing. is this sort of like ap 1964 all overgain for rublicans where you have the rockefeller liberals and the goldwater conservatives or their versions

today going at it? >> well, both parties are groups of people w come together for common good but who may believe differently on some things. and as charles krauthamer pointed out in his very interesting column today in the washington post, this does go back a long way. i'm not sure to the 1960s as you have say. there has always been two strains for republican party. one for more interventionist policy, one le so. they came together after the cold war and 9/11. nowh sometime behind us, not too big of a surprise that you would have that date cropping up again. can i say one other thing aut what byron said. i think he is absolutely right and it is important for folks to realize. you're most vulnerable election is first time you stand for re-election. you better listen to constituents want to you do rather than leadership to do. you get elected couple more times you can start working with leadership a little more. representative democracy is

called for for a reason. your folks want you to represent them. neil: that is where it gets back, senator dorgan, this view about the health care law and what issue of role of government, another issue. i think for both parties what they're wringing with, how far the governnt goes keeping us safe, democrats how far we go keeping us healthy. you get what i'm saying that will be a big topic in 2014. who has the edge? >> well, it will be a big topic. i don't think there is equivalency between the break in the ranks on the republican side versus the house side or excuse me the democratic side in the house. speaker boehner has a very difficult circumstance over there because he has a couple of groups in his caucus that feel very differently about these issues. but health care will be an issue in the coming election. mo memrs of the democratic caucus having voted for it feel very strongly and also i positive way about this new piece of legislation. neil: let moo ask you, senator dorgan, you are very astute with the pluses and minuses and, it appears at the time, memory

serves me right you read it and quite aware of it, rest of premiums could go up to the, and mighh go down, hope springs eternal i guess. but i don't think many of your colleagues were. i think they were actually and genuinely surprised that premiums have gone up tohe degree they have. doctors are ticked off to the degreehey are and they're genuinely now on defense and they don't know why. is it that bad? >> well, but let me again say americans are getting rebate checks from the insurance that. neil: i don't mean to dismiss that senator. i don't mean t dismiss your point. lookok at average polls from gallup, cnn, "wall street journal," "new york times" what comes rough loud and clear in all the polls americans are not liking it. >> they don't like the term in the aggregate. they like the specifics. keep the kids on insurance policy to 26. neil: i'm against that paicular feature because my daughter is not leaving, senator. go ahead. >> preexisting conditions. lifetime limits are gone.

so, there are some really good things and people individually as, looking at policies -- neil: maybe. but, you kw, senator kyl, i'm wondering too, though do republicans risk in this battle, let's say over health care looking like obstructionists? all you do is we hate it we hate it, we want to defund it which appears to be going nowhere the defunding issue? at best you're looking like obstructionists. you're notoming u with alternatives and might equally tick off americans? >> look at the vote this wee 40 democrats, many freshman including my congresswoman, who voted with the republicans not o have the irs be the enforcement entity and make the mandate deferral for big business also apply to individuals so that they're treated fairly and you don't just defer it for a year with respect to corporations. so, there are a lot of things about obamacare that are not popular. even democrats. i don't recall the exact vote, it was 30 or 40 democrats who

left pell pell and voted wit republicans on that, a lot of them freshmen. there is nothing wrong with representing your constituents. what this is all about people don't like it. they don't like the irs. they're not that crazy about obamacare andhy i wast a big surprise some democrats, especially those more vulnerable are voting their constituents interest rather than nancy pelosi? neil: can you understand why there seems to b rising interest, does happen a lot, third party, independe party, or alternative party? senator dorgan? >> well, again i think when the, affordable care act finally implemented i think it will have very broad support. neil: all right. >> no, i don't think there will be third party or independent party. i would like to see both political parties find a way to work together. neil: will never happen. >> needs to happen. neil: i don't think it will. setor kyl, do you think there is legitimate chance a third party could make a go of it or at least make inroads? >> no. i think one interesting thing is that the more libertarian stream

of the republican rty is represented by some of the leaders in the party now who themselves might be candidates for president. so if anything, i think you might see that argument brought in more internally into the republican party rather than a threat of a separate party out there on the right. >> i agree. neil: gentlemen, we shall see. voices of reason, both of you, thank you, guys. >> thank you. neil: forget the 162,000 new jobs added last month. focus on a certain sector adding only 1,000 of them and rejoice.

neil: kicking off our blitz, the government taking it on the chin. only one thousand government jobs were added to the economy last month in an overall economy that added 162,000 jobs the same month. government useto be a leader in these monthly jobs gains but

not anymore. in fact over the last year or so, virtually not at all. to gary b. smith and keith fitz-gerald whether this is the best blitz news of the day maybe the week. gary b., what do you say? >> i think you summed it up right before the break, neil, this is a reason to rejoice. look, i think aost any job we d to the government stor is inefficient job that causes red tape for the private secto so one thousand is gat. i'm only -- my only question is what happened to the sequester? why are we adding any jobs? shouldn't it have been a negative number? i would hope so. neil: that's right, i forgot about that little sequester thing. keith, what do you make of all this? >> i'm totally with gary and want to jump up and down, a. a, it is about time and b, why isn't it negative and see questions it working. get to the point where they're shedding money and put it back

into the public where it belongs. neil: if this were russia would count as government job. ed snowden getting job offer fr russis social media compy, their facebook, if you will. weird talk about a uy who knows how to collect data, gary b., so i wouldn't imagine that weird. what do u think? >> first of all iearned something. i didn't know the was a russian facook. neil: it is called facebookkie. >>t speaks to a broader issue. we gave $2 billion to russia hopefully to irove the relationship. look how well that worked out. this whole thing is awful. i think he is a criminal and russia should turn him back over to the u.s. neil: don't hold your breath for that one. keith what do you think about? >> i'm in the same bolt. the guy is a patsy and w do whatever russian ielligence was him to do. this issue speaks how russia treating united states and speaks to our internaltanding

and ptin thumbing the nose at this country. dare you to do something bit? what will psident obama do at this point. we can't fly over and collect him but i think we'll try. neil: do we do tit-for-tat, gary b.? skip out on the g20 meeting in russia later this year or skip out on their olympics in the winter? what do you any? >> well, yes, one, i think we should do is but two, i can't be overt as olympics t has to be something more subtl and dare i say devious. i hopefully we have some smart people working in lappingly and other places thinking about those things. neil: what do you think, keith? is that what we've got to do, get mean, devious? >> boy, i'm not a political expert, i wish i was and would like t have answers. i don't know what to make of this. i would le to get him back. i think he's a criminal. this boosts social cause of rock star leakers. i don't want to see the next one.

>> we'll put. issue 3, gentlemen, rolling not so stoned. apparently controversial cover of the magazine featuring the boston bombing suspect was worth the heat. it heated up newsstand sales, more than 13,000 rolng stones flying off the shelves, double the average. hmmm. keith controversy sells i guess? >> you know what controversy may sell but personally i'm disgusted by the cover. i'm an athlete. i run aross many a finish line. i don't want to hav to go across glamourizing terrorist. this is hiding behind the idea of journal listic integrity when the harder stand is protecting freedom. neil: gary b. >> i'm with keith on this from the past discussions i'm ultimate capitalist. from mcdonald's lethem zealoussy junk food. let tv networks put on terrible shows but in this case, bully fo"rolling stone" for finding a way to increase sales. on the other hand, pathetic. how do they know they wouldn't have made just as much money and

putting sales by putting victims on the cover? i think this is poor business decision. neil: very interesting. i bet they could have gotten more. gentlemen, thanks. have a safe weekend. >> you too. neil forget about china hking into computers. worry more about the fbi hacking into, yours.

neil: our phone cause, our emails, our chat rooms. make room for the ultimate hack attack, courtesy of our, fbi. what has to be surveillance on steroids, reports that the fbi is rounding up innocent guys in a dragnet to catch the bad guys. that's right, hacking into all sorts of high-tech communications to catch criminals and god knows what acts, and i you're dragged io the manhunt, so be it, live wit.

deal with it. privacy advocate katrina pierson sa, by the way you haven't heard the half of it. this is amazing to me. how does that happen? >> you know, neil, this is absolutely astounding. every day we are hearing more and more about how much time, energy and resources from our federal government are spying on people like you and me. i don't know what's more disturbing. the fact that i'm being spied on or the simple fact that our borders are still insecured. after a 9/11 menlity which is what our government uses to tell us why they have to do these things, we still have a border that is porous. this is astounding and i bieve we'reourning the death of the people's republic of the united states as we speak. neil: well you know, it comes in a week as you know, katrina, we got indations nsa was snooping, not just on phone calls. it was emails, chat rooms, where we go and search on internet. there was so much of information they could only store it s

long. there are not enough terabytes or whatever you callhem to. they have to sift through the important ones. they had a lot to sift through. we get the fbi separately has sort of this wide net it cast on presumably bad guys but you know, also getting caught up a lot of good guys because directly or indirectly, they might be on the same link, the same url or whatever. where does it stop? >> well, i mean that's the thing. we don't know what information they're keeping and whose information they're purging. they could be creating a dossier on the average person for future use. we're seeing all this play out as we speak. i'm in full agreement with the civil liberties union. the simple fact we need to have this debate. we need to reinvestigate the patriot act and consequence of these things that our government is pushing upon the american public. and i believe, 2014 is the time. these issues can come up in a midterm election and really shape the debatef what our country isoing to look like in

the future for us and our children behind us. these kid, might be receiving e-mails or text messages and clicking on the link simply because they don't know what it is. they could be building case on our children to use against us or them in the future. we don't know. we don't know what guidelines they're using, if any. we don't know who is being purged w need to know as americans what is being discussed and talked about among individuals simply because we're probably all going to receive a letter from the military industrial complex assigning as you casewker. we need to get a grip on things. neil: what do you make t battle in the republican party someone likehristies, it is about preventing us preventing 9/11 endorsing these programs but rand paul says not at expense of surrendering all our liberties. where do you stand on this. >> absolutely, rand paul is 100% righon the topic. how do we call a free people if we're prisoners to the state? my congressman, pete sessions is

one of those republicans who loves the nsa stuff. he calls himself the drone guy. he is one of the authors of the drones. he is not opposed to having armored vehicles in all cities. so these are the types of things we need to identify. we have congressman, who have been in congress for decades who simply don't know what they're there to do amore and time that we remind them what they're supposed to be doing and for whom they're working for. we can do that in a very clear way in 2014. neil: katrina, thank you very much. good wordsf warning by the way. katra pierson in dallas, texas. when empty-nesters that sign the economy is running on empty?

neil: well you know, more adult kids than ever are rusing to leave the nest. they're making it their nest and increasing their nest for life because more than one out of three young people are still living with mom-and-pop.

some not so young. up to 31 years of age. that is a lot of normans in the basement. a sign this economy is going psycho? ask jo ling kent and steve lazear and jean marsh. what do you think? >> a lot of factors, confluence of things. rising education costs. really difficult employment situation. parents who are willing to have their kids live at home. kids willing to live with their parents. this up tick has gone from 32 to 36%. i find all this interesting this is coming tether and more and more people are living at home. something, when i graduated from college i ran far away to china. but, it's something that has become -- neil: taking a bit of a leap there. i told my daughters the poconos would be a start. >> i is becoming very socially acceptable. think there is something wrong with the whole entire structure of education and unemployment. neil: gene marks?

>> i have to say, this is, personally, i have three kids that just graduated high school. all 12th graders, twins and one 11 months older. don't even ak. they're all going to college next three weeks. our plan is to lock the doors and move to canada. there is no chance moving in at all. they won't find us. that solves the problem. really, in all seriousness, look our expectations as parents when kids are going to school, they will graduate at age of 22. 25 to 40% of those kids go on to graduate school. a lot come back and do have to live at home. it is new reality in 2013, kids when they graduate from college they still need help from their parents in some way. some can afford to set their kids up to give them a little cash to live on their own. others the kids have to move home. it's a slow economy. i'm not seeing that change the next four or five years. kids have to get skills somehow. they have to get job training. parents are helping out. neil: my daughter is among them and seven or eight years old. and she isn't leaving.

love you, honey. steve, when you look at this trend has been increasing through republican and democratic administrations the like, but it does bespeak of something bigger in the economy. what is isn't. >> i think, i agree with just about everything jo ling and mark said. the one thing we need to worry about, i think these young kids are almost the canary in the coal mine so to speak when it comes to wages. wages have been dropping steadily 45 years since 1968. i'm not blaming democrats and republicans. i think they're both equally responsible. kids are getting entry level jobs. salaries are low. poison of high student loan debt. these folks can't make it on their own. they have got to move back at home. a lost these kids areorking. they can't pay rent. they can't pay food and erything else on their own. they're having to move back in. i think we have to be worried about, that the situation. >> you've also got to look at education system as well. i know a lot of kids going to school. they graduate really not prepared for the workforce. i can't hire a lost kids out of college because they don't have

the skills i really need for them to do a specific job. so there are two kinds of -- in philadelphia, for example -- neil: maybe you're too picky. why don't you hire them. >> in philadelphia, for example, there is decks sell university. they have a co-op program, during their period in college they're working half the time and going to school. at is the kind of thing colleges have to do to prepare kids for the workforce. otherwise they will not be making much money out of college and have to live at home until they get experience to be on their own. neil: i remember, jo ling, in the italian culture, go back to italy or other side of me that is irish, you go back to the families, quite common and remains quite common the child marries moves in with the spouse. boy that would be a nightmare in my family. but the bottom line is, it is not alien to other cultures to have this. the japanese culture comes to mind. many cultures in europe. it is a phenomenon built up steam here for other reasons but is it such a bad thing? >> it is different now because the marriage rate among young

people keeps on declining, rit? just as the rate for having kids continues to decline or gets older. so i think that, a lot of students coming out of four-year universities are thinking can go out there to achve my drm and go for what i want. that is it what they have grown up, been told growing up. but it is increasingly difficul% in this difficult economy. something else very interesting to see in the study by pew research is the gender breakdown as well. you see more young men living at home actually. neil: yes. >> than young women. neil: don't getexist on me. don't get sex it on me. >> that is not a good sign. >> saying it is an interesting sign of not only employment and educational structure but, what is, what is acceptable and i ink sometimes you have to fall on hard types to realize what has to be done. sometimes you have to learn the hard way. neil: it breaks down to the degree she said, steve. what does that say about us and our gender? >> it says sething not so good things about our gender unfortunately. i think also, that will reinforce the fact people are not getting married.

if you can't liv on your own, offer that to your spouse, who will want to mary you. neil: unless both are working right? >> that's been the trend since the '80s, right? you needed two salaries to survive. i'm worried that it is getting worse than that. i think we'll see more common like latin america and italy and ace like where more than kids and parents have to start move in together to make ends meet. th's what i'm worried about. >> all i know if my boys come home after college with the gatorade bottles and sneakers lang around i will kill myself. >> you but love them. neili nt to know their ages because i did mention my daughter. but isomething we can talk about later, gene. steve, i want to thank you. jo ling. she has been going to 3:00 in the morning. doing earnings reports on "imus" and prior. >> happy t to be here as always. neil: some unwith you won't find at home eating bons and wait for the job. remember we're halfway through

earnings season and so far, bumpbut still pretty remarkable. we're going to be all over that. see you then. is it tonight fore willis report." thank you for joining us and have a great weekend. lou: than you for being with us. good evening, everybo. president obama is repairing for a rare trip to capitol hill. there he will usher senate democrats out of town for the recess. but it is becoming clear that this president needs a vacation that is still 10 days away. president oba headed to an amazon distribution center in chattanooga, tennessee. there he delivered a wide range of speech on jobs, the economy, obamacare, just a little spin on the seques