>> they exchangecollapse, the old u.s. dollar the original owned currency. >> mellissa. >> i got a video for mine. you watch the president running around. i fully expect him to duck behind a pillar for smoke. even this won't stop kids from dropping out of the school lunch program. >> neil is next. [ music playing ] >> oh my god, a run away spending train. thank you, taxpayers for another ride, get out! hi, i'm neil cavuto. >> that didn't take long, did it? fresh off the debt ceiling, president obama ilroading more spending. they say he's in overdrive$300 million worth on roads and railways, he wants to spend some

more bucks even though we are essentially out of bucks charles spain wondering what the buck. we have adam lischinski. >> to quote ronald reagan, there you go again. you got to be kidding me. >> it's horrible. >> give me another three years, five years, ten years. but the reality is, that it's really nuts. i wonder sometimes if the president is just delirious. he's throwing these numbs out there, these game plans out there. we had an infrastructure, it was a ab for money. it did nothing for the greatert country or local communities. spain had a program like this that was outrageous. they built 42 airports, new highways, they're the brokest western european country in the world. it doesn't work. it might buy votes. it will hurt you in the long run. >> i will put you down as a maybe. >> i this i if you pay for this

and it feels like every speech that the president has given since he was inaugurated in 2009, he has mentioned ininfrastructure spending. but if you are going to pay for it, do it with some honesty. because half of this $300 billion he is proposing is ming from reforming the corporate tax code. if you want to fill the highway trust fund, you have to raise taxes on goline period. and he won't talk about it. democrats won't talk about it. body will. those ar the only truly honest way to p for fixinghe road. >> i think she kind of buried the story there. she is talking about the money getting it from revamping corporate tax reform. but that, inherent in that argument is that you can get revenue cutting taxes. so i think what he is saying here, i'm already prespending that. but i wish he would sort of acknowledge that budg-wide, just cut tacks. >> not only that, he should explain $300 billion, we are talking billion.

i thought i saw million for a second. become, even that's not enough. do you realize that? you can spend $800 billion, and that's not going to jump start the economy in a meangful way when the government starts to direct the projects. the best way is give businesses assurance they won't be tax deduct and they won't get crushed on regulation. $800 billion stimulus package was needed. what wasn't needed is the vernment directing the winners and the losers. >> it's a good point. adam, it misses another point, what are you doing with the $120 billion you are getting from federal, state soues to address our roads and bridges? because they're still tumbling down. they're inwful shape. but before you ask for another penny from me, i'd like to see you account for the pennies i have already given you and they don't do that. >> well, i think you put your finger on it, neil, i thought that opening video was meant to show crumbling infrastructure,

not a run way train. >> that is the problem. you assume, you feel like the administration is not, the government doesn't say how the government money is being spent. >> that's exactly. >> my assumption is the $120 billion isn't enough. i would encourage us to think about this way. an additional spending on infrastructure, which is the subject,s an investment in ourselves. you know, that's like putting drinks -- >> you didn't is answer the question. i'm saying i agree with you. you are not listen, i agree we have to something, i thought the tune of $120 million we were, that money is not accounted for. a lot has been stolen or misplaced or shifted into something else. so i'm happy to address these ills, but i'm not going to compound this sin by adding more money to the money that's already disappearing. >> so, neil, i'm always in favor of better accounting, more

investigations, no, i am. >> to only throw more money at it. you just said it. >> i'm number no, i'm not. i assumed sa small percentage of that money is being stolen. and i assume, hold on, charlie, somewhere between the $125 billion that the republicans are advocating the house ways and means chairman wants and the president wants is a good number to spend on infrastructure. >> what you won'ting naj is this nb notion to spur the economy has never worked. it has never worked. it didn't work in the great depression. the $4u6789 billion stimulus package, let's triple it. maybe if we triple it, you might go bankrupt before it starts to work. >> i want to add -- there adam, you go back, you look at eisenhower's, the highway project, not necessarily moving the needle on job creation and the economy. to keep telling the american public, this is all we have to do. by the way, neil, reforming

corporate taxes, i don't think the president means what you mean. he may mean hiing them. >> let me address that. >> finish that point. >> i wanted to say, in my view, this is infrastructure spending to improve infrastructure. not to improve the conomy. not to create jo. >> what infrastructure are we talking about here? >> the roads, the bridges, the tunnels, the waterys. >> i agree with what adam is saying, if you sell this, be forthright about it. our roads are if bad shape. we have taken $50 billion from the general x fund. >> that is taxpayer money and put it into the highway trust fund because we're not getting enough money from say gas taxes in this country. >> i love you dearly, but that should hardly b a fox news alert or a business alert. >> the fact of the matter is we will rob peter to pay paul. to rob and steal from everyon >> because i tnk it would be a wakening for people if they thought, hey, i don't drive a

lot. i'm trying to conserve my own money. your taxpayer dollars will cover road damage you didn't cause. >> why is the infrastructure not anybetter, when we dealt with the infrastructure better than the stimulus package? that was sposed to go to infrastructure and shovel-ready projects. it never works. >> why is it a crisis? >> what? >> why is eight crisis all of a sudden? >> i don't think it's a crisis. >> he really doesn't know. >> you drive it every day, it's a crisis. >> new york city, i run every now and then. new york city spends money, sells bonds and should be taking care of its own infrastructure. i just don't understand why if we have such a crisis why it's not any better. >> i said at the outset, there is this other annoying little issue of not having the money at all. you can talk about strategically investing. we have nothing to invest, we strategically do it. absolutely.

but that is what is the most irksome here because the president, hope frings i spri-- springs eternal. i think the jury is out with that. we don't have the liberty of doing a lot of stuff we might want to do because there is simply no money in the till to do zblit the bottom line is the president should be foced on spurring the economy. >> he is going to tell you which incentives. >> to spur the economy, calm off the war on success, calm off the wore on business, lower tax, spur the economy. tch this bad boy come tolife. >> we do have unlimited money. we do. >> this is the great spending for a photo op. you b a lot of equipment and get people out there working, send camera yu u crews, people see them filling potholes, oh, that's how the government should work. >> charlie, was coming alive for moment there. he was making an important point. we do, in fact, have the money.

there is money in the till. >> it's a scam. >> and -- and -- >> we don't have mone come on. adam, you can't countborrowed money as money? >> yes you can, charles. in fact, you can. >> 's because the united states is the tallest midget in the world that we have right now unlimited borrowing capacity. that's how we pay for this stuff. >> i am not suggesting we spend foolishly. >> in the apartment.

dozens of envelopes of drugs in

his home, he was only 46. all right. here's it a food for thought. as the government is slapping food on new labels and putting the new labels on a whole bunch of food, i want you to think about this stuff the government was saying was bad for us not too long ago and it's good for us for the time being. it turns out coffee will not kill you. some of the anti-oxidants are good for you. and milk, some of the fat-free makes you crave fat. you get fat. get this, chocolate is loaded to ward off strokes. charles, you think we need an oops label? >> can you imagine that? the nutritional fact. yeah with egot social spending out of this world, give it a 90% daily value. what about choleerol, obamacare, it's clogging up the nick i economic arteries of this country. yeah, it would be great if washington could label itself. this is okay for the first lady

to go out and say we should eat better. it will cost the food industry $2 billion. the labels work the same. they have. >> the biggest change is portion size because the labels we use now are based on the way we ate in the '70s and ''80s. and we eat a a lot more now. they are changes the portion sizes on labels. by the way, the government is not telling you what to eat. you are not picking up a pint of ice cream. they don't tell you -- >> now they give you the caloric content in the pint. do they do it for the half gallon? >> it doesn't say it talks to you and says your hand is bull bus, maybe you don't need to eat this ice cream. >> you me, richard simmons, we can work out. away we go. >> here's what i'm wondering, a lot is clarifying portions, because when people have a back of potato chip, they assume the calorie count they are seeing is for the whole bag.

it turns out the portion was two portions. so it's clarifying that. it's more than that. right? i guess what i'm wondering is to go through all of this all over again, is it really wore it's it? is it, are you getting the nutritious bang for the buck? i mean, if we are going through this we should all be looking like gasparino in the end. >> you too, of course. you don't want to look like let's say me. that's what i'm saying. >> look, i think it's a, you know, you are going to think -- this is overly simplistic. you are either for progress or against progress, to me this is progress. where you e the nanny state. i see giving consurs or i should say requiring food manufacturers to give consumers better information so they can make intelligent decisions. >> there was a time transfatsad good, transfats are now good.

we have gone back and forth on this we can't make up our mind what was the greater crisis a few years ago is now okay toy. so what i'm saying is, if we go with these new daibl labels, i see the point about simplicity, i y we write them in pencil, that's all. >> this is my point. you know the scientific community you know changes its mind. it's not out of the dishonesty or competence. >> it's common sense. at some point it's common sense. i don't care how much good fat or bad fat is in potato chips. they're fried, you know they're bad. that's one of the things about michelle obama. she talks about people eating less processed food. if you go by these labels. >> people don't use common sense. >> i read, certainly, the calorie content of the ttng. this big labels are going after sugar and added sugars. >> you are saying ideally t 2,000 calories.

i thought that was per meal, it's per day. >> have you ever eaten at a buffalo wild wings? you are pushing 5,000 calories. >> some of it is very obvious. we need revised labels to teach common sense? >> you know what else it is, neil, it dovetails back to this notion, we are not responsible. food companies will be shamed into doing the right thing. >> listen, i want a sin upon bun, i had no idea it was going to make me fat. this is broccoli with glazed suga on it, i'm going to eat it. >> because someone is blocking. >> whodidn't know cigarettes caused cancer in the last 40 years? do i need that label? >> to that point, the government will be a lot more intrusive with these food labels, shoot, as long as they don't talk to you, you know, t the coffee

down. >> how do you know that isn't next? put the pnt down. >> milk makes you crave the -- >> i'm going by what they found out. >> i don't believe that, either. >> fine. okay. charles and adam a leaving now. when we come back, i want you to take a look at this. >> someuburban california homes trashed with graffiti bashing the 1% t. forbes gang wants to know if this ishat happens if they keep banging the clh warfare drama. remember this, isn't it odd the go company slapped by the government, gets a slap on the wrist by the government. history is repeated. another

1.3 million cars. i want to you try this number. general motors apparently aware of major emission problems for ten years before issuing this recall. getting a pass from congress throughout. putt think about it, lawmakers, seems like a nanosecond to go after toyota. first hint its cars were having acceleration issues. charles payne, this is driving home a double standard. >> well, there is a gigantic double standard. remember ray lahood. he was there saying don't mess with the toyotas. whatever you do, don't buy a

toyota, you know. government mogeneral motors makg a good car. it is screaming hypocrisy. it makes people more bitter about the bailout. >> the national highway division is investigating the timing of the recall. because there are deaths involved, i will put money on it that the will be hearings in front of congress. if therere hadn't fwen outsxraj kind of reaction you saw after toyota, yes, i think it is a doubledard. i thk there is more to this. >> you are definitely right. already the end of the week they were talking about holding hearings. they haven't put a date to it. you wonder -- let'say a lot of this was really coming poured, we are told five, six years ago. thatas around the time we were looking at not only the meltdown but the melltdown of the compan. that would not be a good time on bring something like this up. u can at least argue that it would be a good reason to bury this. >> right. i ud to own a saturn.

that was on the list. you know, it reminds me of the case at standards & poors is making on the downgrade. attacks because it is a -- you know, downgrade medical the u.s. seems like he is guys play really rough. it is more evidence that that is the way this administration -- listen, go after standard & poors, you don't go after salinger. withdrew go after -- go after toyota, you don't go after gm because they are government motive -- >> come on. >> give me a break. listen, i'm -- >> you changed the subject. i'm month fan of standard & poors but moodies -- >> on this subject. well taken. what do you think of why now with gm and what they do now? >> to the extent that will is hypocrisy, it is discriminated against a non-u.s. manufacturer of cars vers a u.s. manufactur of cars. t a manufacturer the united states. they may. don't condone it.

>> union? >> maybe. i put more stock in congressmen and women investigating the foreigners than not investigating the domestic company and they should and we should. of course, we should. especially if will are deaths involved. we should investigate, i said so earlier. i don't think it is a function of, oh, well, we own gm, we should stay away from it. >> do you think happens to -- >> month because congress -- >> quickly. we don't have much time. this came to light in the middle of the whole auto bailout. >> we would have done it. >> if we just bailed them out, absotely not. they would have swept it under the rug for sure. now because the government extracted itself it is a different story. they are fang a $35 million fine from the transportation board if they fine them. >> already want to revise that but it is too little too late. thank you. when we come back, working hard and working longer. more people 50 and over are

putting off retirement. thanks to our gang, you might not have to.

early retirement. >> online real estate, zillo, next three to five years will have explosive growth. >>pox.

good for people around my age. not children. >> love you dearly. the brother i never wanted. a new battle over reigning in. preventing the tax agency to ask groups specifically for their political, religious or social beliefs. instead the administration actually wants to expand the irs' ctrol over those kind of organizations. shld we rein in the power or give it more? let's go in focus. steve, do we really want to give the irs even more power? >> no. we should be giving it less. they are engaged in suppression, coverup and engaged in trying to make surth