other stocks. >> van guard, life strategy, goes on auto pilot. >> ben? >> get warren buffett to manage your money, you're a lucky guy. >> powerful business block. only 40 million bucks, get a $7 million bonus. guess who's eating that bill. good morning, i am liz mcdonald. uncle sam doling out cash prizes to states wasting the least food stamp money. you heard that right. now time for federally required work requirements to chuck the food waste. sabrina, fix the waste, making it harder to get food stamps.

>> absolutely. none of us begrudge people that fall on hard times, all of us imagine what that might be like. but the safety net is terribly broken. supplemental assistance program has doubled in size since 2007. it is now helping 47 million americans. there's something wrong if one in seven americans depend on food stamps. >> good point. michael, this debate often is derailed by people that think we don't want to help widows, orphans, children. that's not where the debate sits. we added the equivalent of new york state in the last decade to the food stamp rolls, it is now about new york and texas combined. what is the problem here? what's wrong? what do you think is the fix. >> the main problem, the president's economic policies have been terrible. i think what you need to take from this, the big picture, if you go back to what a real

recovery is in the mid '80s, the average person was on food stamps for six months. today, after four years of the obama recovery, the average person is on food stamps nine months. that tells you all you need to know about how bogus president obama's economic policies are. >> you know, rick, here's the issue. the rate of growth is what we're talking about, growing faster than gdp, we have been through economic down turns, but it is a real explosion in food stamps. should we bring back work requirements? >> look at what's different. everybody wants to blast by the real reason for the extraordinary growth. people that work at walmart, ladies and gentlemen, don't make enough money, and therefore under up getting food stamps. coincidentally, whose the biggest beneficiary of food stamps in the country? walmart in the grocery division. so yes, it is a great idea for people to work. here is a better idea. pay people enough when they work

that they don't need food stamps. meantime, i continue to support programs, community service programs if people are getting benefits, they can go to work in the community. >> also to michael's point, you need better paying jobs. rich, here's the thing. both president bush and president obama weakened job requirements, they left it to the states to decide. in the past, the job requirement was weight watchers, job training, volunteering qualified. should we bring back a work standard into welfare to cut the food stamp rolls? >> yes. we have to. we simply have to make getting on food stamps less appealing for adults who are healthy. people between 18 and 65 are healthy, shouldn't be on food stamps. if they are, should have a work requirement. you exempt the truly disabled

and people that are old. but look, the expansion, 18 to 65 area, that doesn't wash. the economy is not the strongest it's ever been. unemployment is down to 6.1%, the recession has been over for five years, we need to peel back the number of people on food stamps. >> john, to michael's point, we've been through economic downturns before, had food stamp usage. we want to help women and children and the destitute and poor. we are talking about able bodied people that don't have children. we didn't see that trend in prior recessions, john. >> i side with mike, you want to grow the economy with people that are working, then you don't need food stamps to begin with. i think we have to remember that cities and states should be the laboratories of ideas. let them control distribution of food stamps. if so, there will still be waste, fraud, abuse, but much

less of it. >> let me push back, john. when you left it up to the states to decide, the federal reform under clinton left it to states to decide, then you have job requirements were weakened at the state level, they let the states decide. that's when you had weight watcher classes qualifying for food stamps, anti-smoking classes qualifying. i don't think that's the way to go. >> they should be laboratories of ideas. some will make them weak, some will make them strong, figure out locally what works best rather than one size fits all from the federal government that ensures waste. >> we are rewarding waste aren't we to some degree in this program? >> there's a lot of talk about the government mandating $15 an hour wage. this is a great place to mandate it. here is how it works. if you're earning $600 a month in food stamps, you owe the government 40 hours of work. we will find work for you. there's lots of work needs to be

done by the government. >> but it is not about wages. >> some people given a blanket of exemption to parents because they have kids at home. you know what, taxpayers that are paying for food stamps have jobs. those taxpayers have kids. they manage to get to the job even though they have kids. i am not sure i give a blanket exemption on that score at all. you owe 40 hours. >> it is not about minimum wage, we are talking about cutting waste. i want to keep it, because this debate often gets really derailed, right? it becomes fak toid intolerant when it gets into politics. we want to get into does it work, does it work to have a work requirement to cut people off food stamps and cut waste out of the system. >> i think it would, but here is why. one of the things we are focused on with the welfare state, weary roading the sense of self

reliance and civic which would help the neighbors and help each of our communities so we're not dependent on washington bureaucrats to send us a debit card for food stamps or for weight watchers classes. john is onto something, we want it local but more local than government. >> reminded me of a cartoon i saw recently. what should we do with people that rely on handouts and refuse to work, kick them out of congress. >> you know, going back to bill clinton's time. >> rick liked that. >> newt gingrich came up with a very effective plan to reduce welfare, get people to work. unfortunately, that's been eroded the past several years. i think looking at what clinton and gingrich did would be a good place to start. >> rick unger, when you get people working, this is going to be, i know you're going to make your head explode on this one,

forgive me. when you get people working at the lower end of the food chain, yes, but they can get up and work up the chain and get a better job. get them off welfare, working, and move into a higher paying job. >> that's hard to argue with. the problem is i wouldn't disagree with that, no head exploding yet. but i think that as they do move up, you've got to pay them a liveable wage. what we still have going on is income inequality to the point it is now the biggest problem. >> let me get to rich. what do you make of getting waste out of the system. have you seen it work, putting people to work stops the waste in the food stamp program, cuts dependency and cuts dependency on handouts? go ahead. >> if you cut the number of people on food stamps back to 2006 levels, that would be nearly cutting it in half, without doing anything, you would cut fraud in half. we have to start by doing that.

then work on fraud. to rick unger's point, hobby lobby pays $15 an hour, costco pays $20 an hour. liberals argue nobody gets paid anything, but that's not true. >> john tandy, what do you think? >> sorry, rick, you can't legislate higher wages, you can and reduce job opportunities. >> keep it on food stamps. we w poor people, i think all of us do, the worst way to do it is to legislate it from washington, d.c. invariably it will be handled the wrong way in ways that harm poor people. give it to cities and states who will do a better job, much less in the way of fraud and abuse. >> hear more from bill baldwin, he will come back in an upcoming segment. stay with us, we have a hot topic coming up. it is a bird, it is a plane, it is a bird, it is a plane, it is a

uh just gonna hang out. with gary and todd? yea. i've been meaning to ask you, is there any drinking going on in this crowd? no. so if any of your buddies ever pressure you to take a drink, just tell them you promised your dad you wouldn't. i'd do anything to keep you safe. ok. i will. i hope this is working. i promise. i love you too dad.

ramone. tommy was 62. i am kevin wright, see you at 1:00 for america's news headquarters. welcome back. the drone debate, taking off this week after a couple of incidents raising safety concerns, like this one, a drone flying directly into fireworks, and another drone almost hitting a police helicopter near the george washington bridge in new york city. both of these involved recreational drones which the federal government allows for now, while it continues to ban drones for commercial use. but rich, you say the government

has this one backwards. explain. >> entirely backwards. look, a company like amazon is contemplating using drones to do individual delivery of packages to houses. i would trust amazon because amazon has deep pockets, therefore they have to train drone operators and operate with strict standards or else get their rear sued off if they screw up, whereas joe the drunk flying through a fourth of july fireworks celebration is a real risk. >> a risk for airplanes, i mean, i know there's a limitation, you can't fly it near airports, but i tell you, it is scary. also you could be at the beach and some guy is flying a drone over your beach blanket. >> i saw that happen, it was a private beach, and this guy was going in, hovering over a bunch of women, which was creepy. i agree with the justification for commercial drones. but i just don't see how we could ban personal drones as well. i think rationale would exist

for both. i think there's more risk when you increase the liability to a company level. so i think we should allow them both for personal and commercial. >> sabrina, doesn't it, aren't there both sides, whether commercial or personal, we have had car accidents, train accidents, airplane accidents, get the commercial angle that they may be safer, they have insurance to cover it, still doesn't stop the problem of a flock of drones hovering in the sky and causing a lot of havoc. go ahead. >> i definitely heard a lot of conversations about this on the radio and tv now. i think we're having the conversation that needs to be had. one of the things we need to pay attention to is how government is using them, right? the government is using drones because they're so much more affordable for things like search and rescue than traditional helicopters. we have to assume this is a market that only has room to grow. we need to figure out as society with government help how do we do this safely. from marketing to agriculture, there's tremendous potential

here. >> john, tammy, where do you come down. good for amazon to be able to deliver products on the 20 millionth floor of a skyscraper, or joe shmo using a drone to peek at people on the beach. >> i say about a thousand flowers bloom, will there be mistakes, of course, but how we advance economically, we will see drones transform how we get consumer goods. i saw an article how it will transform how you watch college football. let them do it. get the government out of the way, let them work their magic. >> at what cost are these mistakes? how costly could they be? go ahead. >> the school of economics to which i usually subscribe, let it fly until it doesn't work out. that works until delivering a pizza runs into a jet engine

causing a catastrophe. my thing is no drones within 20 miles of an airport. >> rick, what do you think? >> i want to know why you were concerned about carrie and sabrina spied on, not john or bill. >> don't need to worry about it. >> an exemption to all pizza places if it speeds up delivery. this is simple. we license people to drive a car. license people to drive a drone. two, you simply put limits on how high they can go depending what they are. and you have to be licensed for that. this is not rocket science. they are flying things. the faa covers flying things. there are things we know to do to make it safe. >> wait a year and a half for the faa rules. you pollute, you pay. the government wants to take money directly out of your paycheck. the cashin in crew wonder how the cashin in crew wonder how you can do that. [ grunting ]

i'm taking off, but, uh, don't worry. i'm gonna leave the tv on for you. and if anything happens, don't forget about the new xfinity my account app. you can troubleshoot technical issues here. if you make an appointment, you can check out the status here. you can pay the bill, too. but don't worry about that right now. okay. how do i look? ♪ thanks. [ male announcer ] troubleshoot, manage appointments, and bill pay from your phone. introducing the xfinity my account app.

welcome back. attention taxpayers, it is already called the next big bailout. according to a new report, the federal agency insuring millions of pension plans will have a deficit of nearly 50 billion bucks in less than 20 years. carrie, you say only one thing could fix this. what is it? >> pensions are a relic from the past, from a manufacturing based economy. we are an information based economy. we need to shift our employees

onto 401(k) defined contribution plans, we will get a more accurate reading of liabilities and the taxpayer will be rescued. >> john, here's the thing, we're talking about bailouts of company pension plans. this is the last rubicon. why should a federal taxpayer step in to bail out a pension plan in another state? what do you make of it. >> i don't like it, the federal government shouldn't bail out failed pension plans. one area i disagree, i don't want rules. some companies want to offer benefit plans, some want to offer 401(k)s, remove bailout from the equation. >> rich, should it be only 401(k)s, no pension plans? >> well, i agree with john, but most companies and unions should go with 401(k)s. as warren buffett says, the best plan is dollar cost average into a broad s&p 500 index and outperform the professional managers 8 out of 10 times.

>> rick, corporate pension plans are the back stop, it is funded by insurance premiums that companies pay. i think mike probably agrees, but still, taxpayers could be on the hook for it. >> i have to say, carrie made a good point. the concept of a defined benefit plan worked better in a manufacturing based society. the thing i have concern over is i think you can't go to people that have based their retirement coming up over all these years on a defined benefit and switch it. going forward, think she might have a good point. >> i think it should be a gradual process. but i want to disagree with john. >> can we come back, we have to get mike in on this, i'm sorry. here's the thing. we are in bailout crazy land now. it is ironic the first modern era bailout, excuse me, the airline industry after 9/11, now the big airlines want more

federal taxpayer money if the pension plan goes bust. go ahead. >> the problem is by law they're not allowed to set premiums, the government sets the premiums. if it was allowed to set premiums, it would have enough to cover liabilities. i agree with john, let people choose what plans they want and you wouldn't have to have to bail them out if you got rid of this law limiting rates on premiums. >> terry, go ahead. >> i don't think it is politically feasible to get rid of the pgc. we have to be a safety net or entitlement. getting rid of it gets rid of a safety net when what we want is keep the safety net, not make it entitlement. >> john, keep the safety net? go ahead. >> i don't see why we are on the hook for company errors. that's the problem, it made us into a safety net society, keep propping up failures of others.

>> michael? >> if you allow them to charge the proper rate, you won't have to bail it out. that's the point. keeping the rate low, it isn't able to cover its liabilities. >> i agree with mike on this. exactly the problem. >> great panel, you guys. next, are rocky times ahead. names that survive and thrive, even if the market goes down. stay with us.

welcome back. we are back with safety stocks for unsteady times. >> weight watchers international, by the way was maligned in an earlier segment this morning. i think it is trimming some fat out of the balance sheet, and it is operating costs. >> michael, you like it? >> why would i buy a stock, find out everything i need to know about losing weight online. inflation and gold prices are headed up. >> what do you think of that. >> i think gold mining consists of the practice of extracting metal from the earth at great environmental cost, burying it back underground in a safe deposit box. no stock for me. >> market correcting? >> i can't predict correction. i think for the next decade, sub par returns. >> 5% correction in the next three months. >> may not be able to skirt a correction, nearly three years since we had one. you could scoot out and buy my

book. that's it for forbes on fox. we will be back next week. thank you for watching. keep it here forc bolling and "cashing in." this is a problem of the president's own making. he's been president for five and a half years! when's he going to take responsibility for something? >> he is fired up, illegals pour into the country and drain our resources. the president refuses to go to the southern border to get a look at the crisis, but don't worry, he found time to play pool and fund raise this week. americans are taking notice and not taking it lying down. and then. >> imagine the unimaginable. what would the world