they just found out they are like drugs. but they are making cameras to spy on you at the grocery store. 20% in a >> bull or bear? >> i'm a bull on john's coat. neil cavuto right now. >> in it to win it. but are they in it to win it for themselves and not for you? hello, everyone. i'm charles payne in for neil cavuto. after passing a deal that solves nothing, congress is taking another break. any wonder voters are saying give me a break? 74% of americans want to throw the bums out. would that solve the problem? let's find out. we'll go to dagen mcdowell, charlie and larry. larry, throw the bums out. it's the universal cry. would that be the answer? >> it sounds good to me. look, the single greatest asset we possess as a nation is our credibility and our trust.

in the global financial mark markets but also here at home. the last few weeks of dysfunction reminds us just how fragile that confidence and trust can be. it's time to revisit that before we get in trouble. throw the bums out. maybe. at a minimum, get them back to work and start dealing with some of our long-term problems. >> here is the thing, dagen. we heard the word intransitent a lot. >> and intractable. >> and a lot of four-letter words we heard as well that we can't say here. they are all entrenched. it feels ultimately, what about us? what about the people? >> in the house of representatives, we get to elect our congressmen or women every two years. so i have to believe that some of what was represented in washington, whether you think it's good or bad, does represent those -- those lawmakers' constituents. >> but aren't they supposed to go to d.c. to work those things out? listen, people don't feel the same. >> if you talk to people who were in the tea party, they're

perfectly happy with somebody like senator ted cruz putting his foot down. and at least sending a message, even though it might have been an embarrassment to some. i just think that when people say they want to throw all the lawmakers out, they truly are thinking about somebody else. somebody sitting at home saying, i don't like nancy pelosi. how could you ever elect her? >> would it actually solve the problem? >> no. well, maybe. no. i don't know. this is a hard question to answer because the public -- the general public keeps voting the bums in. incumbents generally have an advantage for a reason. they are voted in time and time again. charlie, it's the reason why it's i'm against the death penalty. i don't trust the will of the american people. i believe you could convict someone improperly of murder. >> ad am, it wasn't just the te party, right? everyone drew a line in the sand. the president wasn't going to negotiate. i don't see where anything was

solved, anything was different, and it seemed like everyone held their ground on this thing. >> i'm pick up on something that dagen said and disagree with you and charlie, which is that i do trust the will of the american people. this was the tea party, in fact. and i'll say something nice about them. i agree with dagen. they weren't representing their interests. they actually were representing their constituents' interests. they wanted to throw sand into the gears of government. they did it very successfully. they behaved in a sort of disgusting, childish, petulant way. >> was it really disgusting? it wasn't disgusting. >> but i think they'll be thrown out of office for it. they'll be thrown out of office for it, and we'll move on. this will be -- this will end up being a positive moment in our democracy because as dagen said, we do get to have an election every two years. that's good in the house. >> i have to tell you, larry. i think what adam said just now is representative of a side on this argument that somehow

thinks that they weren't as rigid as the tea party, that somehow found themselves on a pedestal above the tea party. that's where the friction comes from. that's where the problem comes from. one side says, we didn't sully our hands. it was only the other guy. come on. >> i totally disagree that these people are going to be voted out. everyone is going loves their o congressman. they hate everybody else's congressman. it's all money and special interest. where's the passion? you have to take a stand, and they haven't been willing to make the tough decisions. >> i don't agree with that. >> charlie. >> i don't agree with shutting down the government. but to say what the tea party representatives did is disgusting, that's reprehensible, adam. that's insane. they actually represented their constituents very well. they wanted to shut down the government. we had a debate about health care. i don't think it was right. i don't agree with their

tactics. >> we didn't have a debate on health care. >> this was not disgusting. it's democracy. >> here's what i want to ask you. america, we were born of a constitutional convention. there was a lot of disagreement. i mean, we've overcome i think larger obstacles as a country before. >> right. >> with the right people at the helm. >> remember, there's a constitution -- one of the reasons there's a constitution, and we should uphold and defend the constitution, is you don't have to worry so much about this. that constitution protects your rights when insanity in washington goes on. but i will say this again. what the tea party did was not disgusting. they represented their people. i think it's wrong. i think it's stupid. but not disgusting. >> i don't think it was -- david, how can you use a word like "disgusting"? again, you know, the debt ceiling got raised. the government got reopened. we didn't even hit that october 17 deadline. so is that -- i mean, is it

disgusting? you know, everybody wants to eat a hot dog. we love democracy. but we don't want to see that hot dog get made. well, this is what it is. >> adam, here is the thing. back to the original premise. the american public is fed up with all of them. it's not you have a part that you don't like. you don't like the tea party. the tea party is watching this. they don't like your point of view. overall, america is saying if we throw the bums out and start from scratch, we may get people who understand their job is not only to represent constituents but to represent the entire country. >> well, i understand. and i think it's a naive point. i think if we threw them all out, for example, we would get a new batch of self-interested people, if that's your view. clearly, some of these people are self-interested and others aren't. again, i'm praising the tea party people for truly representing their constituents. i think in a literal sense, they're radicals. i don't think they would disagree. >> would you consider president obama a radical? >> no, i wouldn't. >> oh, come on. >> in the sense that i'm using

the word -- >> he's not radical? >> he's too mainstream. >> obama care is not radical. did you see what's going on with obama care recently? >> listen, not to shift gears too much, but i don't want to talk about obama care right now because there's a two-hour business. larry, i want to go back to you. the american public is certainly fed up with the way washington works right now. there was a time people felt it worked so matter who was in office. and there was a time when people who were radical we seen in a positive light. and that's sullied all over the newspapers from day one. >> look, we got lucky here that the american people thumbed their nose at all of fearmongering about the default that would happen. and that's why the stock market is at the all-time high. next time we might not be so lucky because we have to rely on the kindness of strangers. what if china gets nervous and don't want to buy our debt? that's when we'll run into trouble. you don't want to keep repeating

this mistake. >> the market is rallying because we didn't get past that date. >> we were rallying the whole time. >> i think we might have gotten some weird agreement here. if you looked at the headlines, since obama care is considered to be the big winner, but really was it? the forbes gang has proof that the president's health care law actually lost big time. that's at the top of the hour. but up here next, those pro affirmative action protesters may not like it, but the supreme hour. could beñ@ç@çpçpçpç÷ñoa

i'm kelly wright. now back to "cavuto on business." taking action against affirmative action. protests erupting this week after the supreme court appears poised to uphold a decision in michigan. lots of protests against this. what say you? >> i think affirmative action is a great concept. it's a noble ideal. the problem is that, you know, it's no longer to help disadvantaged african-americans, ancestors of slaves, people suffering from jim crow. you can be kids of the chilean dictator, start your own minority-owned firm, and make a lot of money. you can be a rich cuban and get extra points on your s.a.t. how is that american? >> if you look back at the kind

of more famous supreme court case, i think it's from about 10 years ago regarding the university of michigan law school considering race in the admissions process. and that really looked at affirmative action as something that would change over time and potentially not be necessary down the road. >> sort of time span, right? >> that's correct. >> and that's what sandra day o'connor said. >> and don't you think that is going in that direction? because this case -- >> what about the notion, guys, we need affirmative action in america anymore? >> well, what do you think? >> well, first i want to know what you think. >> i think we do. >> your head is turned. you're going to get yours, adam. >> i know adam agrees with me that we do. but the need for that -- >> but it should be -- it should be economically based, and you should not be a woman who went to harvard, grew up rich, and get extra points on your s.a.t.

over some poor white guy. that's insane. that's un-american. >> adam? >> i'm pretty sure this is the prevailing way people feel about it in san francisco as well. >> well, look, dagen had the right word when she said the word "necessary." is it necessary in some instances? if the answer is yes, go for it. if it's not, then no. should we take it out of our tool kit mpletely? and i would say not. you don't want to take it out of the tool kit. let's be reasonable about it. >> it's like being half pregnant. how do you have a little bit of affirmative action policies? >> well, because you have a little bit, let's say, or a lot of bit of discrimination. so we need to decide when the discrimination is a problem and when it's not a problem. >> how do you justify the children of rich south americans coming to this country and getting extra points on their s.a.t.s? this is a program that was for

the -- >> we got it, charlie. >> i have to say, i think charlie makes a really good point. look, a lot has changed in this country since the early 1960s during the kennedy administration when affirmative action first came on the scene. the demographics have changed dramatically. and this is not just a domestic issue. the european union is evaluating affirmative action. sweden overturned affirmative action in several cases. as the world evolves, the policy needs to be thoughtfully updated to provide the original intent. for example -- do you use affirmative action to put a female ceo on a board? before in the 1960s, it was getting women into the workplace. now it's should the woman be the ceo. but maybe the company should be making those decions. not the government in every case. >> just to be clear, as larry is alluding to, the discussion should be about discrimination,

not about race only, not about gender only, not about, you know, disabilities only. sometimes you need it. >> lot of people -- >> here is the thing, though, adam. a lot of people are going to say if you have a program like this in place in the first place, then by definition it is discrimination against a white person or someone else that didn't meet the criteria. when you give someone an advantage over someone else because of a special interest, then somebody will be on the other side of that argument. >> well, it becomes a quota. >> who's enforcing it? the bureaucrats, people that have no concept of the way the world really works? >> but the direction this has gone is not that that's your primary consideration, say, in the admissions at the university of michigan law school. it was a consideration but not the primary driver of that admissions decision. that is the way the court looked at it. >> but you don't know how the bureaucrats interpret it. >> there are serious protests out there. some people feel like this is

really wrong. we still need this in this country. is that an indictment of the country or an honest assessment of the country? >> i think it's the opinion of some people. the way the "wall street journal" editorial page describes this case, that it's a ban on racial discrimination violates the constitutional ban on discrimination. and that this is a decision by the citizens of the state who want to operate on the principles of color blind opportunity, was the way "the journal" represented it. >> i think personally there was a time we had a need for it. i don't think it's been successful at all, to be quite frank with you. i think in some cas it's backfired, and racism exists. i don't know how much more it will exist to the degree that it does. but i think everyone should be on their own merit at this point. >> i think we hope for the day that we don't need it. >> what's wrong with helping out people who are disadvantaged economically? >> that's different. but we're talking about racial.

>> but it's a different world. >> we have to leave it there. attention all shoppers. for the first time ever, macy's is opening up on thanksgiving day. oh, jc penny too. critics are slamming them, but should we be celebrating them instead?

♪ ♪ put down that drumstick! it's time to go chopping. macy's and jc penny's welcoming shoppers at 8:00 p.m. on thanksgiving. the latest retailers to open the doors ahead of black friday. critics say the money-making push takes away from family time. you say they should celebrate this, though, right? >> absolutely! give people a reason to get the heck out of the house. >> work the food off! >> i look at the newspaper for the stabbings on thanksgiving day. there are always stabbings everywhere, where everybody has too much to drink and get in a knife fight over the turkey. if you don't like your family and they are getting on your last nerves, you can go shopping. there you go. >> adam, you are not making too much noise for me not to go to you next. >> i am going to say this. i'm ready for the twitter comment and the facebook comments but there are more important things in life than making money, charles.

making money is important. i love it. >> excuse me, while i tweet this out. >> but people should enjoy thanksgiving with their families if possible. >> oh, boy. larry, what do you think? >> look, don't blame the retailers. don't blame macy's. blame al gore, it's his creation, the internet that caused these problems. we live in 24/7 world. i have to work at night, on holidays and weekends. in a perfect world people wouldn't work on holidays or weekend. in a perfect world i bead a centerfielder for boston red sox. we don't live in a perfect world. we have to navigate this. it's worse if macy's went out of business and amazon ruse the only show -- was the only show in town. >> people are saying they have been around 150 years. why break tradition now? >> it's the 21st century. >> i worked at a dishwasher at

italian restaurant. we had to work easter. i made extra money, got away from my parents, which is go. >> i worked in a hotel. i worked thanksgiving, new year's, christmas. every holiday. >> my dad was a bartender. those are times you make money. take off another day. >> adam, i have to come back to you, my man. it feels like -- listen, i'm glad you are a traditionalist, that is fantastic. but in a real world in an economy suffering for jobs this will help a lot of people out, no? >> look, i'm thankful for all the people who do work on thanksgiving. because i don't. i get to benefit from their hard labor. i don't completely disagree with you but it would be better for big employers to let their people enjoy the day and come at it hard the next day. >> isn't it self-defeating? you want to make more money and employ more people. it's a day to make more money and employ more money. what is wrong with this? >> you want to send the message that sometimes, sometimes we stop and we're

thankful for all the good things we have. >> adam, eat turkey the following day. >> dagen? >> the company is just responding to consumer demand so it's the problem of the american people who want to shop all the time. blame us. blame us. >> got to leave it there. by the way, it's 8:00 at night. you have eaten the turkey and seen detroit lose. right? >> right. >> thanks charlie and dagen. up here next, think the crowds are going wild for the lawmakers reopening the government? well, think again. they are jacked up over stocks our gang finds with

put up or shut up. stocks our gang is buying with their own green. adam? >> charles, vanguard's reit index etf. everybody should have real estate in their portfolio. i have this. this is a very inexpensive way to own real estate. i just want to stress this should be a portion of your investments, not a big bet. small bet. >> but you are buying it, though, yourself? you bought some? >> all the time. regularly, i do. yeah. >> larry, you like that one? >> i commend adam. this is a terrific vehicle to play real estate. however it may be the wrong time for reits. a lot of new supply and construction coming online. maybe higher interest rate? is that a construction crane behind you, adam? >> what do you like, larry? >> something there is no shortal of in washington right now, fertilizer. i like it. i own it for me and my kids. >> this has been a dog for a long time. time to get in?

>> not necessarily. this is basically a play on the chinese economy. if you think the chinese economy is going to continue to do great, buy it. otherwise, that's a risk. >> you did great. thanks a lot. david asman, "forbes on fox" is next. my man, dave. here he is. well, forget about the politicians. how did obamacare come off at the end of the debt deal in some democrats say obamacare was a big winner since the changes that republicans wanted didn't happen. but check out these headlines. former obama press secretary robert givens calling the exchange glitches "excruciatingly embarrassing." only 1% of the website visitors signing up. aetna ceo knocking the law. hospitals lay off workers in part because of the law. on and on and on. so did obamacare come out this week as the big loser? hi, everybody. i'm david asman. welcome to "forbes on fox." in focus with mr. steve forbes.