>> neil: quickly, adam, as apple author. have you seen the movie on steve jobs? >> i did. i thought it was terrible. >> neil: there you go. adam is going to review reviews. david asman, "forbes on fox" next. >> david: remember these scary headlines -- "mandatory budget cuts are risky for the u.s. economy." a threat to jobs. on and on. maybe not. all the warnings that we heard about widespread furloughs, not really materializing. get this, the federal deficit is actually slinking. so is this proof it's time for even more cuts? maybe more sequesters? hi, everybody. i'm david asman. welcome to "forbes on fox." let's go in focus with the man himself, steve forbes, john candy, elizabeth mcdonald. e-mac, more cuts? >> biggest squawkers found way to stop the furlough.

transportation, justice, education, pentagon. what they did is cut. even the government biggest union found ways to cut the fat. when the pentagon is doing war exercises because they warn the debt is so big and a threat to national security, if a president added $5 from on his watch and the bond market says the interest rates will go up if we continue to add to the debt, we have to do it now. >> david: rick, we understand that the sequester was arbitrary. a lot of cuts were done in a sloppy manner. if you leave it up to spineless politician in beltway, you won't get anything done. >> i don't disagree with that. but the results of the sequester aren't as bad as we thought. there's great. one area i'm concerned about. headlines out all this week pointing out what sequester is doing to the national science. it's cling that it we are

entering the dark ages of the science. >> david: by the way, you think we're entering the dark ages? >> i know we are. i am aware, i keep up on this. i am aware of the important medical research going on, driven toward pharmacology. they have come to a screeching halt in the middle of the program. >> david: it might be because of obamacare. >> it's not. so don't say that. >> david: it may be. the bottom line is we're not sure exactly how dangerous -- one thing we are sure about is that the sequester itself was not as bad as we were told it was. right? >> it wasn't as bad. that is great news. i say proceed with caution here. it's been a drag on the economic growth. it's likely we will see another round of sequester with the senate going over the legal spending limit later this year. that being said, we need to be smart. the area that needs it most is entitlements and -- >> david: do you believe the

congress is up to it? president and congress can work together for smart, targeted cuts? we haven't seen evidence of the smartness inside the beltway, have we? >> not accept the sequester, but if you look at the numbers, the cbo projects social security, medicaid and medicare, spending is up $73 billion over last year. those are areas to target. baby steps. move in that directi for long-term cut and spending. >> david: is it canning spending drag on the economy? >> opposite. i stimulates the economy. that's why we'll get a little bit of growth this year. where does money get none -- where does the government get money to spend? taxation. so if you leave it in hands of people to use it productively, it's something we all benefit from. >> david: sabrina, you have specific places to cut more, right? >> absolutely. i couldn't agree more with where we need to cut, the entitlalment program. but there is plenty of other places to start. we know that obesity rates are

down. nick that antiobesity program. get rid of the obama phone, given to people who amount demonstrate they need a phone. what about the $20 billion in farm subsidiaries, that are going to large, wealthy farmers. everybody has a pet project to ax. >> david: everybody is screaming bloody murder. but think of discretionary spending. i hate that term, but that is what they use for what went up tremendously in president obama's first term in office. in 2011, discretionary spending increased $1.3 trillion. we had $1.3 trillion increase there. that is a huge amount of money. i had to go down. >> this is basic economics. if government is releasing less, it's released in private

sec for to go in production. maybe we want to talk about the raging forest fire, size of government. that'sicrosoft that will never be created. cancer curs you'll never see. transportation innovation that won't happen. cut government spending because we want the economy to grow. better things and liberty, too. >> john says if you have more government spending it will crowd out the research you are concerned about in the private sector. >> you can't even argue this. we know it's not true. you can laugh. i don't know how you dispute that. most of the cancer discovs, most of the cures you talk about are the direct result of the government participation participation -- >> and they wouldn't have occurred without government spending? >> i can't tell you what would have or wouldn't have happened. >> let me finish. >> i'm going to finish. we know that spending led to the cures.

to suggest cutting it out -- >> i hear what you're saying. public/private partnership. nih research grants went out but they were the in there -- private sector was in there to give cures we need today. john is talking about the u.s. dollar. when you have a stronger u.s. dollar you have the manufacturers coming here to build plants and that creates jobs in the united states. they can report the profits back home. >> i hear rick's argument all the time for people who like big government involvement in things like medicine and research. without big government involvement, we wouldn't have. look at england for example, which has full government involvement in healthcare. how much research are they creating? how many new discovers are they creating compared to our economy, which is more private sector? >> when you get socialized medicine what you do is kill research for the future, which is why for the pharmaceutical industry in europe with it away. in this country, in terms of what nih does, it's teeny part

of the budget. if you want to wall it off, i can find $2 billion for the rest of the got easily to cut. freeman said he'd rather have $1 trillion balance thatx $ 1 trillion budget that is unbalanced than $2 trillion that is balanced. because it takes money from the economy. >> david: there may be things to spend money on, but if you take it out of the private economy, does it help, one, the economy? and two, innovation? >> i agree with everybody on this panel. but we can have arguments about little areas to cut and debt ceilings and sequester. at the end of the day it comes to entitlement. if you want to balance the economy for the next generation, look at that. >> david: i know you are not terribly concerned about the deficit in general. you don't like big government spending but the deficit doesn't scare you.

but the taxpayers pay for the interesten the deficit. >> rather than pay interest on the government discovering new programs. being back to rick's point, would you prefer genentech and pfizer or merck discover cure for cancer or the government? >> go ahead, rick. >> what i prefer is whatever gets the job done. ask genentech -- let me finish. you asked me the question. ask genentech how much of what they accomplished has been with the assistance of the government funds. >> david: emac. >> in social economies you don't see the major american brands like we have there, the soft economic power. you don't see it in china or socialist countries. there is a reason for that, because of the private sectotor. >> david: that is the last word. coming up, kistone pipeline project like this going to become endangered suspicious? what a new report says about the pipeline that could shut the protesters down and stop the president from saying

things like this. >> they keep talking about an oil pipeline coming down from canada that is estimated to create 50 permanent jobs. that is not a jobs p.m.

eastern on america's news headquarters. have a great day, everybody. allowing the keystone pipeline to built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest.

our national interest will be served only if the project does not significantly exacerbate carbon solution. >> david: did we find out that the keystone pipeline is not a solution problem. there is a new record revealing that the proposal to expand it will not impact greenhouse gas emissions. steve york you say it makes it impossible for the president to justify delaying the project any longer. this president will try to come one a way to delay th thing. i would rather have oil going through pipelines than on trains and if investors are willing to finance it, go for it. good for us. less oil from venezuela. good all around. >> david: rick, the bottom line of the report, says if we don't do the pipeline we have to substitute the oil from venezuela, which is dirty oil. >> be careful here. that is absolutely true. what the report was talking about is carbon pollution. what they said is correct.

if we don't have the pipeline we have the same carbon pollution as venezuela. however, there is other, much more important pollution in my mind. that is what it does to the ground waters. i will say what i have been saying all along. we shouldn't debate this. >> david: now the people of nebraska agree they are in favor of the project. >> if they're for it, i'm for it. >> david: john, what do you think? >> i want to go to a great steve forbes comment from years ago. he talked about the environmentalists worry about global warming calling it a massive human delusion. it's an arrogant solution also. in this case, if you want to fix the environment the best way is grow to economy. if the private sector wants this, it will lead to a healthier economy, healthy economies are the ones that have the best environments. >> david: all right. morgan, hasn't the president already set out the parameters by which he would approve or disapprove of it? now from this report we find ouby his own parameters it should be improved?

>> i would agree. it should be. but he has been putting out a lot of mixed messages here. if the president wanted to pi a bone with a keystone pipeline, the argument is it will drive up prices as the infrastrucre makes the price of wti go through the roof, which is sometng we're starting to see. that said, this oil is going to leave those one way or another. it will create jobs. we have seen it create 4,000 construction jobs. these construction jobs in the industry not seeing work, unlike residential construction side. >> david: emac, the president says it only creates 50 permanent jobs. >> totally wrong. talk about noise pollution. the president. there is a lot of noise pollution from the white house. it won't raise or lower prices. even the president's own energy department said 167,000 jobs have been created in oil and nat gas since 2007. not the 50 he is talking about. why is it that it's always government spending that has

the multiplier efct and flight sector growth has a multiplier effect and tax cut. listen to. this the multiplier effect are restaurants, health service, oil and nat gas services to prop up around this -- >> david: she is fired up. wow! >> don't hold back. >> david: i didn't want to hold her back. are you as fired up? >> i am -- >> david: sabrina. >> i am pretty fired up. look, we all know the only reason we haven't seen the pipeline come to fruition is this is a president trying to, you know, appease the far left of his democratic base. this is nothing the to do with if it's environmentally safe or creating jobs. i will create thousand of jobs let alone the trick

this is time to turn around. >> i like the massive human delusion. >> i like the noise pollution, too. >> we have to move on. poverty is now growing at a faster pace in american suburbs despite government hand-outs. someone on "cashin' in" says it's because of the hand-outs across the america. that is at the bottom of the hour. but first on "forbes" grounded. justice department trying to slam breaks on the american-u.s. air merger. is that good or bad news for is that good or bad news for flyers?

see these hands? they gripped the wheel of a humvee in afghanistan. these hands? they're here for the person who fought in afghanistan. confidential help is just a call, click or text away.

♪ ♪ >> david: there is not a love for airlines these day as they squeeze you to smaller seats and charge you for extra bags. the justice department said it's trying to block mergeer between american airlines and u.s. airway, few came to the airline defense. could the government plan end up backfiring on travelers and the worker for the companies? >> absolutely. the reason for merger is make sure they survive. miles per hour airlines is in bankruptcy to emerge from it. they have a combined share of 25%. the real reason that the government is opposing this. the reagan airport, it would be a huge domination by the.

two that's where the people from the justice department go. they allowed the united-continental mergeer. they earned the delta northwest mergeer. this is politics. >> david: this is a nimby things. not in my backyard. >> i see steve's point. but we are seeing negative result of the merger. the prices are going up. the convenience goes down. schedules are getting worse. i actually agree with the justice department on this one. this is too big. not a good idea. >> david: i suspect john neither agrees with you nor the justice department. >> we re-entered rick's parallel uniform. >> massive human delusion. >> 196 airlines have gone through bankruptcy in ten years. u.s. air and american have. which would we prefer? companies that are profitable and successful or companies constantly going out of business or bankruptcy? let them merge. >> david: emac, the point is we may not like crowded seats

but at least we're going where we want to go. if the airlines didn't exist or these in particular, we wouldn't go anywhere. >> i tell you something. this is a tough debate. you are right. there is a reason why the cabin pressure on the stocks not so much in the upright position, they have lost $58 billion. >> david: let's put up the stock figures. because this week, when the justicedepartment announced they weren't going to allow the merger, guess what? american airlines and the u.s. air stock went down. all the airline stocks went down. you are right. it had an effect. >> i am worried about the lack of catchtition. 47 p.c. of the time, air fares went up. when you have consolidation, i hate to say this. there is a tendency that prices go up. you have seen it in telecom and other industries. >> david: sabrina is the justice department right or wrong about the merger? >> i'm with liz. the airlines have been unprofitable for a decade. i don't think they have a choice. between a rock and a hard place here. if we want to see it get

better, i have been one to scream at the ticket counter we need to see fir and foremost healthy companies. >> david: steve, again, recently, critics say they have been making money. which may be true. that is on to make up for past loss. is it is not >> david, for 100 years this industry has been losing money. david crandall the chairman of american airlines said on the 100th anniversary of wright brothers he wished somebody had shut the wright brothers down. the only people -- everyone makes money in the industry except for carriers. the manufacturers make it, financiers make it, engic makers make it, the food servicers make it and carriers lose it. this is a rare period they are in the black. >> david: richard branson said if you want to make $1 million, start with $1 billion and then start an airline. the bottom line, to john's point without any airline at all, we wouldn't be flying. >> i'm much more interested in knowing why when liz and say virtually the same thing, sabrina only agreed with liz.

we'll let it go. branson did say. that it's a tough busess. this merger would just be too big there. wouldn't be enough left. there wouldn't competition. >> david: steve? >> it's capital intensive industry it gets new entrants all the time because of the financiers and the plane manufacturers finance you. >> david: who is smarter, the government or fr market? >> or steve forbes. >> david: u.s. airways stock is grounded over this news. a whole group of stocks are set for take-off. find out which ones will put you in first class? that's coming next.

>> david: we are back. informers are here to give you stocks ready to take off for the rest of the year. emac? >> it's up 30% over the last year. up a decent 10% over the last five years. solid blue chip names in there. cheap expenses. i like this one. >> david: you like this fund? >> i think it's a solid low-risk fund. you might get more bang for your buck to invest in the top foldings. >> david: huntington bank shares incorporated. >> this is a regional bank. customer service oriented. they pay a bankable dividends. gobs of insider banking. >> david: regional banks have done well. >> because the fed has been supporting the housing market,

too. they are well positioned for nat/gas industry. >> david: that's it for "forbes on fox." have a wonderful weekend. thank y watching. the number one business block continues with eric bolling and "cashin' in." >> eric: forget big cities. now poverty is becoming a big problem in american suburbs and it's happening as the number of big government hand-outs like food stamps explode. so is it a coincidence or the cause? plus, we're blowing the roof off the biggest nsa scandal yet. now we're learning the agency broke privacy rules. thousands of times per year. folks, this is going to blow your mind. and then -- >> this happy, happy, happy -- [ applause ] >> eric: he should be happy. he just won the lotto. wait until you hear what a majority of americans say they would do if they won. this is going to shock you. "cashin' in" uncompromising, defenders of freedom and capitalism starts right now.