greenlawn write off some solyndra. it doesn't matter what program neil: where were you 50 years ago this very hour? at 8:00 p.m. eastern time in the body of john f. kennedy was in washington for an autopsy that would drag on for hours. but still ultimately lead mre questions than answers. think about where we were as a nation at this very moment coming half century ago. it might even lead to war. concerns that no one was safe and the reality that all innocence was off. fifty years ago this minute, a grieving jacqueline kennedy was being peppered with plans for a state funeral.

this night she would mention camelot beng lost and a martyr was on. it was sadly all coming together at this hour on this day and that includes every major global leader converging on our nation's capital with a hoe-drawn carriage that had plastered abraham linoln with through the same streets. she waited to take her husband home one last time and a new era. e the reality of all this heading home this hour on this night for a country that would be fixated on nothing else these next few days. a friday night then it is now. but as different as night and

day. that is why we are breaking to understand the brave from everything we knew 50 years ago tonight. better to see the man through the met and we begin witknew jack kennedy really was. not that clueless rate and tonight jfk i the pragmatic politician that you might not know and he does some remarkable things. lessons and warnings for it the president then and now. that is what issthis what about john kennedy. how there was no predictable mold to john kennedy. that is what defined him in history and leaves us guessing in history. just ask a historian.

rick, this happened after the fact, but let's go back who he was, and i think one thing that comes through loud and clear is not easily labeled, not a conservative but very pragmatic. >> and these are terms the change with every generation. it is the one at was supposed to be in the early 1960s and jfk as a politician, of course, always one of these terms to be flexible.

this includes jfk being a liberal in the classic mold. it has pretty much been debunked by histians if you look athis backing of the civil rights movement. he was kind of weak kneed the first couple of years and then offense finally pushed into it and he got mor liberal on the issue. talking about his tax cut policy, whch is what i think what you really want to ta about here is jfk who started out fairly conservative on tax cuts and he was not a conservative when it came to government policy. so it is mixed bag. >> he did go after this industry and the irony, i will get into

this with my day in san fran david asman, the message that he was trying to convey. it was always about getting this united states off the map that the russians were beating us in space, we had kind of lost our prestige he was concerned about that and it was a slowdown that he wanted to bring us out of that but ironically with tax cuts and things that would be friendly to businesses, including cuts in inestment. so had he lived, do you think ultimately -- but those tax cuts did go ito effect idi have the desired effect but they said that they would? would be a success more than lyndon johnson ultimately would? >> let's talk about this. because one of the things that's important to understand is when he first comes into office, he is concerned about deficits as

are st americans and he was actually opposed to tax cuts and then he says that we need a tax cut to get this economy going. and eventually the revenues will start to inccease. >> at that time come about, that was actually considered part of keynesianism. you had some liberals who said that it's really all about spending. and jfk jected that, he rejected what was favored, which

was let's have a lot of spending programs. neil: would he have gone along with lbj's plan and i. >> i am not so sure that he would have. because he was very concerned about how theimpct of these deficits were going to be on the country. but he rejected the idea that we should have deficits define economic policy. because he said that if we can get the economy going, and we will have much greater productivity and ultimately this will increase. d if you look at that, but he had put it into place, he did not just cut the marginal tax rates from 91% n the 70% for persal income taxes, he also cut corporate taxes an he also made it shorter that they close up a lot of loopholes and $3.5 billion in loopholes that actually raise revenue for the

federal government. >> he was an advocate of the system. i want to thank you. that's a very good perspective. a lot of you might be watching thing that is what neil and rick are saying there's no way to jfk said that. but yes, he did. check this out. >> every dollar lease from tation will help create a new job andthese new jobs and salaries create other jobs and salaries and the created tax cuts. creating more jobs and more income across the board, top to bottom cuts in both corporate and personal income taxes. >> canou imagine any modern liberal state in agreement or president obama saying the agreement the thing is that he believed in growth for everybody. he did not believe in blaming one group against another, pitting one group against

another. his famous phrase was a rising tide lifts all votes. the goal nowadays for the modern liberal and president obama is included in us,his income redistribution and that trumps the goal of growth for everybody. they are more interested in this is not just saying a sameness, this is why friends of president kennedy like josephalso been others say that he didn't like liberals. he did not like liberals because he believed that liberals would sacrifice what is good for the entire country for the sake of their ideological commitment and ss does the wall street editorial page. bob bartley and milton friedman is to say that, it is very often a corporation. >> you ever wonder what he would think toda of veterans that

provide $85 billion per month to keep the market going and the economy going? >> that's a good question. i don't think he would b in favor of it because he sees the reaction. neil: the things a lot easier for conservatives to say, we have 90 plus and he brings it down to 70 or whatever the

federal govement will ultimately end up with more revenue and that is the heart of tax cutting you a nice breeze. and that iswhat knedy embraced and that's exactly the opposite view of the currentnt administration. neil: thank you, david, thank you so much. and would he endorse the big healthare law that is now a mess today? meet the business owner who says it's driving her to drink. >> obamacare had negatively impacted us. i had no children or history of drug abu. not yet.

and this is driving me to drink.

>> i received notice from blue cross blue shield in september that my health care plan was going to be canceled and it was going to be replaced by one that had been chosen for me and i will never except for someone to make my health care choice for me. i have no children. i have no history of alcohol or drug abuse yet. okay rematch because this is drivg me to drink. [laughter] neil: that was good. cplaining bout the health care lawast week. theeceo joins me right now. an argument for the problems of this whole lot. so where are you now and is there an improvement?

that aveages about 136%. for me and my gender, it's ju under 200%. >> i said in my testimony that i think that every individual should have affordable health care. and there is a way to go about it. i don't think what you want to do is havthe individuals that are here.

neil: so where do you think that we lay right now and are you'll like others that we have had here, better something than nothing? >> and the government is actually chipping away at my freedom. my freedom to choose the health care services that i want, i just can't -- i cannot accept that. neil: so you wouldn't be eligle for the subsidies. those cut off for families, having even said that, this does

settle down. it gives people time to read those and all the options that e out there and everything will be okay and sheila, you needn't be d driven to drink. this will work out. what do you think? >> they are off track. and business owners like mysel are not going to accept it and the government needs to understand and this is absolutely unacceptable. so i don't think it'going to go away. so from what i've heard the past few days, it is definitely not going away. this is just stirring it up and

we, the people, we are tired of it. neil: thank you, sheila. >> thank you. neil: do any of you remember the protest things to push on unemployment benefitspast the 99 week when the agreement that was 300 days ago. the democrats are pushing for the democrats are pushing for still more jobless been in. [beep] [indistinct chatter]

[kids talking at once] [speaking foreign language] [heart beating] [heartbeat continues] [faint singing] [heartbeat, music playing louder] ♪ i'm feeling better since you know me ♪ ♪ i was a lonely soul, but that'she old me... ♪ announcer: this song was created with heartbeats of children in need. find out how it can help frontline health workers bring hope to millions of children at everybeatmatters.org.

>> has been 240 weeks and 11 mporary extension since e first unemployment benefits were

filed. instead of pushing for more handouts, maybe they should be pushing for more jobs. linda i here to hash it out with adam lashinsky. >> this is the type of backwards thinking that we have been getting accustomed to coming out of ashington. and this includes addressing the underlying structural issues. at this point, we should be having meaningful discussion about tax reforms and pro-growth and pro-business policies and instead what we are hearing from is more handouts and welfare and keeping americans on this. this is perpetuating he problem neill i guess things are pretty bad. but are we just, are we making a bigger mess of his?

>> i will say straight out. i don't know what the right amount o time is. so i am trying to be humble about that. but what i do know is that the people, obviously we still have high unemployment and people ae still hurting and we are cutting the social safety net in other ways as well. we saw what happed with food stamps and we saw what has happened with a great number of states refusing to participate in the affordable care act which has ramifications on people like this. so what i am arguing for is that we cannot cannot do all of these things at once. we have to figure out how to take care of people, whether it is extending unemployment benefits or not, i don't know. don't think, i don't buy the argument that this encourages people to not look for work. it is not like they are living high on the hog with unemployment benefits. this is intended to be a short-term supplement. if there really was more correlation between increasing

the jobless benefits, why would we not just extend them indefinitely or for a lifetime? the reason is because there is a correlation and as we see jobless benefits increase, there's a positive correlation with a reduction in that incentive to actually go out and look for a job. of course, that is not all people, but on the margin, there is not a fact. neil: i think what happened is that people have gotten ed to the government as a backup. the big banks and know that the govement will always have their back, you know, those behind on their mortgages, those have a o, the trouble is the government doesn't have enough money. it might sound cool to say that the wll has run dry, but it has. we are knee-deep out here. >> i know that i am supposed to disagree wh you, but i think that you are right. people have come to thk of the governmentas a backstop and i think the government should be a

backstop. neil: but there's a limit to be had, right? >> yes, quite literally there are limits. so i do think we should have a policy discussion on what it should and. i think though that when people are hungry, that is where you end it. and it's debatable as to whether or not the well has run dry. we still have tremendous economic power in this country to help people in need and we are not there yet. >> my fear is that even when they say that we are home free, the fa of the matter is that it's all a credit line. and we are we're going to have to make some hard choices here. >> we certainly are. and i think, the other guest is exactly right that we need to have a discussion of oneness nee to end. i would like to see our political leaders stepped out and say that we know you don't want to stay on the government. we know that you don't want to

bereliant on the federal government indefinitely. so i would like to hear more of we need the ameeican public off of that moving them back into the privatesector. taking some responsibility for the individuals. that is the type of proposal that we need to be hearing from officials. neil: i would just add that we have made difficult choices and they are not always good choices. we have crumbling roads and bridges and we don't have enough people who have access to good medical care. we have cut down on food stamps. we have cut down on the military. we have made some tough choices. and were going to have to make more. neil: times are tough, but they are not depression tough. i think that we have to make tougher decisions because that does not match the reality of the economic recovery or the resources that you say that we have. >> the problem is the way that have this civil conversation among the three of us, that's not the way that the conversation happensn

congress. there's another side that said let's cut everything because all of these programs are bad. [laughter] neil: i want to hank you. in the meantime, the latest privacy invasn a the government. and this one could be outright ilegal. we debated and you decided. we debated and you decided. we will have that next

ha ha! to maddy! congrats on paying off all those student loans! finally! right? how'd you manage that, anyway? i started acking my spending... changed a couple habits. wow, i'm kinda living paycheck to paycheck right now. i don't even know how i'm doing it. well, have you tried saving a little? [laughs] i want to, [phone rings] bill collectors. they're the worst. am i right? [laughs] announcer: when it comes to financial stability, don't get left bend. not home.

annocer: get toolsnd tips for saving at feedthepig.org. the one you have probably heard about this. the government is constantly trackingthe vehicle, it's like, oh my goodness, he beats his children and their. [laughter] enact critics are saying it's a

massive privacy invasion. we have two individuals on this topic. >> i thinkit's more tha creepy, i think it's unacceptable. to have a device in your vehicle that tracks what you're doing and if you pass the light, all of these specifics that are now unregulated. the government has yet to regulate who can use that for what purposes it's like oh, i got ke oh, i got this and they tried to introduce that and try to use that against people as evidenced. >> what do you think we ght do

think that this can go too far? >> you definitely can't go t far. when they are tracking how may people are in your car, how fast you're going, if there is an argument in the car, that is a vy large invasion of privacy and it goes beyond big brother where there is nowhere that is off-limits and you can't have a conversation without someone hearing it. >> you sould see the knucklehead i had driving. >> we want to track this person, we think that they are suspicious. when they track the person for days and months d years, the appeals was gone when police put tracking devices and thus not an invasion of privacy.

>> so what if you are carrying a cell phone or iphone and they contracted through that. >> the argument is that we need to do this now and we need to make it a more blunt instrent. so marty has a device in a car. >> you're absolutely right. the information is being disseminated in a new car already has a black box in it so i can re-create what happened at a time that crashed. >> let's say let's say today she realizes i'm veering off the road. and then she could interpret that to mean that i am dodging

out. >> they can use that against you in a divorce proceeding. >> and she is saying wha if the couple decides they want to divorce ansomeone starts to monitor the other couple. monitor the other couple. where are the limits?

i'm only 17, but i know about invesng. believe in something, buy shares in it, watch it grow. so...what if you could invest in the future? the future of kids? like a stock. not the kind of stock that's about making money. but a stock for social change. a whole new kind of investment called better futures. when you invest, it helps kids go to college. i could be one of the first college gruates from my family. the first philanthropist from my nehborhood. and if i'm the first, then maybe there's a second. and a third. believe in us, invest in us. wah us grow. my name is sydni and i'm your dividend.

neil: another feature of obamacare after the midterm election process. some say it's no coincidence here. >> it points out just how determined that harry reid and the democrats were, shutting

down thehe government by october 1. and f course the first bill we passed would totally be from obamacare, and we knew that it went straight to a compromise, a one year suspension of the whole thing and that really gave them this about giving your adversary the graceful way to exit. and he will have a compromise against ourselves. neil: he is actually doing it for other reasons ith the impact o all that, whch will be devastating on millions of folks who are likely athe very least senior policy tryig to say that after the election, the reality, i imagine he won't let that happen. >> we know the people are getting hurt.

we just read the ltter and i thought, okay,hey found one person in the country that obamacare has really worked for. the people in texas, it was like a thousand to one the other way. so i won't know who they are going to find where they can say, okay, here's someone we actually helped. neil: while you are here, with the jfk assassination, we are talking about how texas just has a scar anda stigma attached to it for so long. despite all e friendly crowd and everything on it. that was just a heat city and a heat state for so long. >> it was so tough. i was a small child, a little bitty kid and i will never forget our elementary teacher coming in and saying that president keedy has been shot and we just couldn't believe it

and people were crying all over and that lived 100 miles east of dallas, and we just couldn't believe it, we are putting ourselves on hospitality. and kennedy and other people were saying that they were trying to win back texas. but my understanding, i love to hear the adults talk. he was asked to come to texas because there is a rift between johnson and yarborough. >> he was really blanketing the state. >> i never heard that one before. but yes. when a man has been shot and killed, there is no way you're going to hold them for some comment like that.

>> i guess that he was warned that it was a very toxic environment and he had been pushed and shoved them in there was a lot of violence there already. and i don't know if texas really ever laid that down. the people are clearly happy to see them. and how long did this take for texas to get over? >> i don't think it has been completely gone over. when people hear you are from texas, as we have talked about honor, they still ask, oh, yes, and you know about kennedy being killed, so it's stl international, i wish they would have thought of this soap opera or something else. but too often they think back to it. even 50 years later. but it was a blight upon texas to a man who is coming really to help heal people.

neil: he wa coming to pass over this coming and he was concerned enough about his reelection that he did this. and it was a cautious jfk going. and retrospect, do you think it's added caution? >> o absolutely. >> i say that andthen we have a president that is not cautious about making any political trips, he makes them every wek. neil: they raise a lot of money. >> yes, but it mmkes them more cautious, and people think about that scene and you know i still have the life magazine of those scenes in my office so those were tough days. very tough days. and it is embarrassing and especially he really was being agnanimous coming to texas, he wanted to be a peace makerand

bring the factions together. and this was a guy believed in lower taxes and helping the economy. neil: absolutely. thank you, congressman. in the meantime, you know the we are remembering someone else on this day. twenty-three years ago. margaret thatcher stepped down as the prime minister of great britn. we will have it for you. very useful advie for

neil: i want you t go back 23 year year ago today. margaret thatcher stepping down

from office. let's put the tape back to that day and try to relate it to a different guy. >> the debt problems that we have a long-term. >> we have done it wiihhe trade unions to control and victimize the individual worker. >> without the loving hand, monopolies can stifle competition's and the vulnerable can be exploited. >> we are done enabling families to own their home. >> giving people choice and public services. >> consumers do better when there is choice and competition. the real issue was decided by my honorable friends, how best to build on the achievements of the 1980s remapped the 1980s are now calling us with foreign policy. because the cold war has been over for 20 years. >> we left out part of that.

get a clue. okay, a former thatcher advisor here on her legacy then and now. now, very interesting contrast juxtaposed against this president's ongoing message. what do you glean from that? >> i have to sa that it doesn't compare with margaret thatcher is a world leader. margaret thater was there tking about why free markets work and why capitalism works and why policies actually advaed individual freedom actually succeed, and she demonstrated this in great britain in the 1980s, rolling back the frontiers of socialism in taking britain off of its

knees, cutting gernment spending, cutting taxes, and you look at the united states today with barack obama implementing exactly the opposite kinds of policy and this is $17 trillion in debt, facing a pepsi in the long run, possibly and then you see a reversal of these very damaging big government anti-free-market policies. so barack obama them anyways is the antithesis of margaret thatcher and that is why america looks like a superpower on the path to decline. neil: the british acnt works for me. and here is what i have to ask about. the history is pretty consistent on what you ge from a streamlined government, tax cuts, trying to promote business activity and not vilify it. that under republican an democratic presidents in this

day, we are looking back at john kennedy, tax cuts came back to fruition sadly after his death. i'm wondering why that message doesn't come through or that liberals tend to think that that's just a lucky break. >> that's an extremely good point, actually. president obama is a leader in dedemaio, frankly. america is looking more like great britain in the 1970s. britain had to go to the imf for a loan or it to avoid bankruptcy because it had built up such huge levels of debt as a result of overspending and margaret thatcher made the point that the problem with socialist government is that eventually they run out of policy with money to spend and what we are seeing in america today is a deep-seated antibusiness mentalitabout this administration, that is the mentality that is driving euro two destruction today.

and it's a mentality that will ruin the united states. i do think the leadership lessons provided by them are badly needed here today in america. neil: it's always good to have you. thank you so much, my friend. when we come back to remembering this other anniversary, what if i told you that these fellows on the right would not have been possible without john kennedy? what i am saying is that he actually invented the internet. sorry, al goxipl

neil: one thing that is lost is what john kennedy not only did on tax cuts, being pragmatic to grow a business, but what he id for the space program and the ancillary effects that it it had on almost all things technology. ifirmly believe in my desk and

argued is that it's not -- if it weren't for john kennedy, i don't think we would have a gadget nation or the technology. because he provided a foundation that encourage that because it all began with space. that also means because of him we had tanks, so we didn't exactly hit it perfectly. but we have two guests on the jfk tech boom. what do you make of that? that he provided the foundation for a lot of these companies as well? >> i think you make a great point. when you think about it, other than or national defense, it is really, as i recall, the last time the government really worked effectively. they took a project they are that was really kind of unlvable. they allocated a certain amount of money, which they did exceed, but they did the unthinkable and in a relatively short timeframe. right now we are going the opposite way where we allocate a

lot of money for things like obamare, and it just gets worse by the day. >> i think you're on a great point. the legacy that kennedy provided was not necessarily political come but i think it was in terms of inspirational. he understood what the world looked at and the implications of what he suggested them what it would be and were he ale today, i think he would be proud of what in fact has be created using this to start. neil: we alwas forget that the idea wise, at that time, to stop the soviets because there is a real concern. but fter that he was genuinely concerned about man reaching beyond this planet, and that started this technological fervor. but it eased a bit when we cut

back on the program to the likes of which really was a full retreat and somethg that we dominated. and that's wt worries me. >> i think you are right. although on the other hand i would say that it was the internet, you know, with government agencies, but it really expanded and exploited when private industry was allowe to spread its wings, if you will. and ifou think about it, the one industry that is probably the most lightly regulated right now and is growing the most is anything related to the internet. others like industry and transportation all have the tentacles of government around and i think when government steps back, industries are allowed to grow and profit. neil: we also have a comparison with data markets. it ultimately got the word, john kennedy had been shot, and he would not fini above finished

above 1000 for another 10 years and it closed again until 1982. we are seeing this kind of game that we established since that time, that was done in one year this past year. so what do you make about? >> i think it's a combination of things, but right at the top of the kerm is the fact that we have this said, you know, pulling all of the easy money into the market and profits have remained steady. you know, somef the tech companies have done well, you know, oil prices have remained stable and we have a couple of derpinnings. but i think it's really do to ben bernanke and now probably still the markets will go up. when you step back from all of that, in the long term, the markets go up. >> yes, just come and they go up for one reason and they ave

since world war ii. we were leveraged roughly 10 to one in financial markets and by the 1960s it was 30 t one. coming in it was 100 to one. so clearly coming you just don'f the government involved and that is for sure. and that his efforts makes "willis report" "willis report." have a great weekend. ♪ ♪ single logo. ♪ >> good friday evening. i'm in for "lou dobbs tonight", lori rothman with you. delaying obamacare enrollment. the moment eriod for the portable correct next year will be pushed back y a month november 15. sparking criticism that the move was made for purely political reasons. about one month away, coincidentally or not, the opening of the momen period pushed back until the midterm election, which critcs claim will provide coverage for vulnerable democrat