. neil: welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. you know bank of america is going to pay. up to $17 billion to resolve allegations it screwed home owners on top of the 13 billion jpmorgan chase had to pay and the 7 billion citigroup greed pay. forget where the money is going to distressed home owners. all right. why is it just the banks are paying, though? why is it the meltdown is on them and only them and not the politicians who go to them and coax them and push them. where are the multibillion-dollar settlements for freddie mac and fanny may conveniently exempt from the

punishments. i'm not saying the big banks aren't sinners, you would almost think they're the only ones sinning. you would almost think washington wasn't encouraging then later demanding banks get off the lending stick and lend more. you would think barney frank wasn't making mortgages for damn near all the land. you would think congress had nothing to do with community reinvestment act that turned mortgage longed its head. and the financial titanic on its way. you would almost think congress and presidents under both parties hadn't loosened standards to damn near a birth right. you would almost think the securities and exchange commission signed off on banks collateralizing the risky mortgages and selling them off to supposedly stupid investors who didn't know any better, just like you would almost forget when democrats were praising countrywide financial's angelo mozilo as a

pioneer for bringing invest officer to the masses before he was a pariah for bringing them to too many of the masses. that was before they were calling them subprime loans and calling them loving loans. true. before countrywide started crumbling and the government started scrambling before it forced countrywide on bank of america hoping desperately that might calm things down. don't you find it a tad ironic that bank of america is paying for countrywide's sins and merrill lynch's sins, doubly ironic of the 245 billion bucks in mortgage securities that have since defaulted or come close, bank of america's responsible for 4%, 4% of them. yet the 17 billion-dollar fine is 100%. that doesn't mean b of a shouldn't pay something just like the other institutions shouldn't pay something. all the finger-pointing

politicians, nothing? that says everything. only in washington where can you make the rules and set the fines because have you all the cards. and you can even write your own. stay out of jail card. it's good to point fingers. allow me washington to point one right back at you. i won't illustrate it but you get my point. share your thoughts. to wealth manager jim lecamp and rick ungar and noelle mcpore. i own no stock in any of the entities, i am saying it's weird. that's all. it's just weird. >> neil, you look at the crime scene, it has the government's dna and the government's fingerprints all over it. you create fannie and freddie mac in congress, and what happens? you drive out all other private mortgage insurers, you ruined the industry and they're funded by endless taxpayer dollars. they make bad loans and nobody cares, no recourse, no recourse

for making bad decisions in washington. so you drive out all the other business, fanny and freddie take some of that money, gives it to politicians like barney frank and barack obama who was senator at the time, and the cycle starts. then you force the marriages with the companies and then you start fining them. none of this makes sense whatsoever. the government has their hands all over. this barney frank suggest at one point if you didn't make subprime loans then you're a racist. this is a hysteria that the government was involved in, yes business was involved in it, they say they're going to take the fines and give them back to taxpayers. i doubt that very much. neil: don't hold your breath on that. david, you and i were covering this so closely when all of this erupted. go-go lending time, you got get more loans out. more loans out, everyone has a right to a home. and when everything hit the fan, it came back and said wait a minute, you overdid it, and

just a year after that, they started saying, this is congress, you're not lending enough, doing enough. they couldn't win for love or money. >> i'm so glad you mentioned angelo mozilo. he attacked you, me, the "wall street journal" editorial page they were suggesting horrors that fannie and freddie were not properly capitalized. neil: how did they get it? >> whenever have you corporations and a government working hand in glove one supporting the other, you got massive problems. government is bad enough by itself, when they work in a corporate status environment which is what obamacare is after all. you have the insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals working right with government. we're going to talk about that later. that's the worst formula for disaster and that's what happened here. neil: what we're left with here is a big bill for the banks that invariably will come back to us, i don't know in what shape or form, higher atm fees,

i don't know. it is going to come back us to. what i care about is equal blame here. and i think now the banks and all, i can remember very, very well when they were encouraged to push to lend and, of course everything went off the rails. >> neil, i like to think about it as a big dinner party that barney frank and regulators invite to eat their food and then they turn around and give them a damn big bill at the end of the meal for the food they ate. neil: what's going to happen with these? >> you are having a great discussion what you believe to be bad government policy. >> it is. >> that's fine. problem is that's not what these things are about. banks are paying all this money because of another word that wasn't mentioned that put together a history lesson. word is fraud! this is why they're in trouble. they're not in trouble -- >> loan fraud, the government? >> the banks did. >> the banks did? it had nothing to do with

barney frank -- [ inaudible ] >> where did he commit fraud? >> they cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. that is fraud! that is huge fraud! [inaudible]. neil: wait, wait, wait, rick, stop, are you saying, rick, are you saying this sophisticated wall street investor were duped into buying these so-called -- stop, stop, the subprime packages that everyone was duped. this was all rigged. do you remember the gunning of the system that everyone was involved in. let's say you're right on the duped part then, were there other hands in the cookie jar, yes or no? >> no. neil: no! there you go. >> none of this would have happened if they didn't allow subprime loans and encourage them in the first place. you wouldn't be able to collateralize -- [inaudible].

neil: barney frank loosened the standards. >> how about andrew cuomo the governor of the state of new york. he was encouraging subprimes like they were free and there was no consequence. neil: where was the fraud? >> the fraud was -- on a few front, in the process of signing people up for loans and telling them to lie, ask angelo mozilla about that. neil: if you sign onto a mortgage and a no doc loan and you sign onto a one million dollar mortgage, are you equally culpable there. >> you are equally culpable. so is the lender if they told you, that's number one. the second is attaching the ridiculous ratings, don't get me started on the rateings. >> fair enough, fair enough. you only seem to be citing the banks and not the people gunning and fooling the system. >> fooling the system is fraud.

i will cite them. neil: politicians perpetuate bad behavior. i'm telling you. here's where i'm going. my fear with this is when we put the onus on the banks and then say it's the politicians who might or might not push them into criminal behavior or bad behavior, the risk at that thinking is the politicians can pack on and say look what they did. so what happens? tim? >> what happens is we have to educate people on the responsibility that government has in these programs. nobody has ever held responsible for doing these things. >> the banks were, the banks were held responsible. they were held out. i'm just saying there should be investigation into that. >> the banks did engage in bad behavior, so did the government. the government created the conditions in the first place. neil: you can't sue the government. >> politicians created it. [ inaudible ] >> that alan greenspan

encouraging the kind of loans, too. it was all over government. >> politicians perpetuated this. they wanted to get re-elected. they were using our money with no consequence of the future. they didn't care at all what happened to the subprime loans or what happened to fannie and freddie or all the rest of it. all they were concerned about is getting re-elected so they made promises they could not keep. >> i disagree with that. >> they made americans feel they are entitled to the bigger, better house. neil: you know politics very well. john kennedy's success says a thousand father's failure is an orphan. and orphan say bank. no saints but plenty of others. >> they have their house forecloseed. >> half of the b of a settlement is not paid in cash, it's reductions in mortgage amounts. >> they're going to wear that out, david. the bottom line is if you see that -- >> i will see that. neil: i've got a new subprime

loan. >> b of a already paid 60 billion. >> countrywide and merrill lynch -- [ inaudible ] >> you want me to be heartless? some of the people in the houses should not get mortgage relief because they still shouldn't be in the houses. you have people making $500 a week in a $700,000 house. neil: i think we spent a lot of time talking over each other. [ laughter ] good news, experience is not required, terrible news, neither is a u.s. citizen, after this.

. neil: all right, not a citizen, not a problem, a new study reveals when it comes to u.s. citizenship, government employers are preferring a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to illegal workers. what does it mean for border dilemma when we bypass that detail about whether you are a citizen. noelle? >> yes, sir. neil: what do you make of that? >> i think that the "don't ask, don't tell," that's a horrible practice, as you know, but the other thing is maybe if we have

a fine on an employer that if they're illegal -- >> why do they ignore it? encouragement? >> they're taking advantage of illegals working, so it's almost an abuse of the worker. neil: why wouldn't the government crack down on it? >> it's the government. look what they've done so far. >> i do, too. >> a lot of government agencies out to bust businesses are taking information from illegal aliens and they don't care, they're looking for nor notches on their belts. the eoc, department of labor, all the agencies are like the sheriff down south. >> assuming they talk to each other, which i question. >> i think the -- >> the point is they want more notches and don't care if they get the information from legal or illegal aliens. >> they're not concerned about the illegal workers, they're

doing this for the employers. every employer in america has a legal obligation to check the citizenship and if the employees have the right papers, they're breaking the law. neil: you're saying we're doing this with the government's blessing? >> to protect the employers not the employees. neil: always err on the side of the government. you are coming down on the side of the government. >> to get the employers, rick. that's the point. >> i agree. >> if we had secure borders, if we paid attention to what's causing the problem in the first place. neil: we are making a joke of basic immigration laws as they stand in the books right now. i don't know when business is a part of it. you are quite right that this is out of control. >> i hate to agree with you, but i agree with you. >> good night folks. why would you not enforce the law? >> you answered your own

question. neil: because you encourage more of the activity by allowing it. >> don't assume a credible witness in an attack on employer is illegal alien. you have to put the illegal alien in jail or send him back home. we're not doing that. >> implement a fine to the company and the immediate manager that supposedly over it. >> there's a thing called the broken window theory. you start by putting the little criminals in jail, the people that run over the turnstiles, the graffiti artists and everything, and you work your way up now. neil: you work your way up. >> right now. >> you have a long way to go. [ laughter ] . >> the point is we're allowing the folks who get away with being here illegally to get away with that. you shouldn't. you got to enforce the law, period. neil: guys, thank you, quick break here, what is more important to you right now? if you had a choice of keeping your privacy and life? there are a good many people when asked that question say

they would rather be dead. really? rather be dead. my in-laws rule.

. neil: in this country, there are people who would rather be free to do what they want or dead. 50% are not willing to give up privacy for national security. catherine ward says americans are picking privacy over protection. catherine, would you do that? would you see that, well i'd rather be dead than have my privacy trampled on? >> you have such an eloquent way of paraphrasing results, how could i debate you?

what people are saying, i don't mean to get all ben franklin on you here, sometimes when you sacrifice your privacy, you wind up with neither privacy nor safety. and i think that's what a lot of people are reacting to, not really the hypothetical which is posing the question. they are told all the time they have to give up privacy for security and not necessarily seeing either. neil: interesting this is important whether you are republican or democrat, whether you are young or old, i'm wondering whether this resonates way beyond what's happening in the sentiment now, what do you think? >> sure, this is an eternal question, and right now i think what people are responding to is fairly overblown rhetoric about the threat, certainly the threat to individuals within the united states right at this moment, compared with very expensive invasions into privacy, we're talking about, of course, all the nsa spying, incursions on what people

rightly believe should be their own business, the tsa is a great example too, and not seeing the national security gains. when you say would you make this trade, people say listen, i was told i am making this trade, and right now it sucks for me. neil: by the way, we have standards on this show. [ laughter ] >> ungar, i find it interesting that democrats would sell that off in a heart beat versus republicans, what do you think? >> has to do with what privacy rights are violated. if you do certain things, you're going to die anyhow. neil: i don't know what you're talking about. >> of course you don't. i don't remember the phrase give me privacy or give me death. most people say this, but guess what, they choose life. >> there is a saying live free or die, but the problem is now i have an elderly family member who i won't mention by name but who put his life on facebook

and then was shocked and surprised and angry that somebody was sending him solicitations that he didn't ask for. we want everything as americans, there are trade-offs. [ laughter ] >> it was david. >> it was a family member. people want to put everything on the internet and have all the advantages of intercommunication, and they're stuck, if you have, that you're not going to have any privacy. neil: we have already compromised a lot, right? it's built into our lives since 9/11 in particular, right? >> the reason you are seeing more republicans reluctant is because of the irs. we have been targeted more than the democrats. look what happened to the tea party. i've had individual donors say do you think that i'm going to be audited because i gave one of your candidates a maxout donation? >> maybe some of them have been. >> i think that a lot of republicans by that fact alone by the irs which is scary

anyway, when you get a letter from the irs, you're like, oh, my god. whether you did anything or not. neil: what were you saying ca catherine? >> you don't wait until the irs comes after you, now it's my side getting hit from the incursions on privacy. you should say listen, i expect certain kinds of human interactions are private, and you know leaving aside what you put on facebook. neil: certain expectations are gone? >> what people are saying is that there's a difference between when the government digs into private business and when they choose to put something on facebook. >> when have we said we have a right to privacy when it comes to irs audit? neil: ben franklin, there was no irs then. >> we never had a right of privacy. if they want to audit us. >> i don't know if you heard, we don't trust what the government is going to do with

that information. we don't trust the government anymore. we trust them less now. neil: there's an ad, when we come back, of a very, very skinny model. so skinny that a lot of folks are saying is this any way to make a buck? because fat chance a lot of you are going to put up with this. wait until you see this. ♪ you've reached the age where you've learned a thing or two. this is the age of knowing what you're made of. so why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain... it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help

for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to you doctor.

. neil: all right, there's a very thin line over waistlines and the gap slammed on social media after sharing this photo of a model looking pretty thin. the best way we can do it is to show it like that. guys, can they make it out. the best we could do at fox business is show it like that because of graphics. are people a bit sensitive?

a larger woman, same dress, how do you think that goes? take a peek at this. do we have that? very different. plus-size model lizzie miller made headlines for the so-called unflattering picture published in glamor magazine, lizzie, this is just weird. >> well, it's actually not that weird. i've been in the fashion industry for a long time, and the waif look has been -- neil: that's not waif, that is feather. >> i agree. the fashion industry continuously walks a fine line between a healthy skinny woman and another one. there is no way to know if this person is healthy about it or not. neil: you are considered a plus-size model, you look normal to me. >> in the fashion industry. neil: in the fashion world, that's not the case. >> in the real world, i don't

feel plus size, i feel i'm healthy, i'm normal. in the fashion industry, anything over a 6 is considered plus size. neil: really? >> they will put out plus size board, that's why girls like this feel the need. these are images we've been fed our whole lives. this girl is meeting the needs and slammed for it. i feel bad for the girl, i feel like a lot of the comments were really harsh. i think the anger is true, it's there, but it's misplaced. it should be towards the client rather than the girl herself. neil: what do women tell you, prior campaigns, have you quite the following here. do they tell you my god, someone normal. >> the outpour of support i received was inspiring to me because honestly, my stomach was a part of my body they was self-conscious about too. neil: my stomach has a different sense. >> i remember my dad telling me, i did that toochl it's

normal, it's a normal thing, and i think that -- neil: what do we do to young women and teenage girls that this is the model that we hold up? it's weird. >> it's unrealistic, not fair for us to only be fed -- naturally only 5% of women fall into the category which is naturally thin, my roommate is one of them. i hate her for, it she can eat whatever she wants. when people are fed this is the image you need to look like when my body type i'm never going to be a size 4 unless i starve myself. neil: you and i talked before on this. every time this comes up there's an outcry and it continues, the gap is featuring this campaign, so there must be something to it. >> that's the frustration i feel like because when i was reading the comments about this, some of the things people were saying were really vile, and it's almost a form of bullying in a sense, but i get

where the anger from. i'm a consumer writing the company, they've been writing the companies for years, this isn't a new thing. they want to see pictures of people that look like them. and companies listen for a second and there will be a spark and it will be great, and they go back to how it is. neil: what do men tell me? >> men tell me -- i don't have a problem with men. neil: i didn't know where i was going there, let me switch subjects there. >> hopefully you're cooking dinner for me. neil: the reason i ask you, remember there was a dustup when kate upton came on the scene, she's no waif, she's no cheryl tiegs, and men say hello, we don't care. obviously, she's still a superstar, supermodel, whatever? >> it's the fashion industry, and real life are two different things. in real life, i feel normal.

men like me, they also like girls that are skinnier, it depends what your type is, i guess. neil: maybe the industry has been trying to appeal to an image that might not be nearly as popular as it thinks? >> it's not. it's like the emperors new clothes. wait, who wins here? i don't get it personally. i think that more companies do need to make lasting changes, not just a flash in the pan. we used a girl once. it doesn't do anything. neil: keep staying in their face. lizzie miller, plus-size model, that's rude. it's not right. >> we're all models, we all do the same job. neil: i'm the same way. >> you're just a newscaster. neil: they see me in person. >> have you heard of a plus size newscaster. neil: yes, i invented it. >> did you? [ laughter ]. neil: do you think everyone is exempt? changes in the health care law could mean very, very expensive changes to you.

. neil: you know it's the penalty no one is paying and won't any time soon, either. someone will have to pay, the way the congressional budget office sees it right now. 90% of the uninsured won't shell out any such thing in 2016. think about that. from now until then, maybe after then, where are these penalties and who's paying what, and the penalty money isn't there, what happens, dave? >> mripolitically unpopular to force people to buy something they don't want or need. that's why they are lenient and taken to court by republicans. point is that americans don't want it politically are going to vote that way. the exceptions are big problem for insurance companies because insurance companies thought there were going to be millions more healthy new applicants coming in and paying money, now

they don't have the healthy applicants so they're going to be in the hole which means i think prepare for another bailout. neil: with the subsidies they're not allowed. you are the lawyer, all the way up to the supreme court. for the meantime, the underpinnings of this are sort of crackling apart. >> one thing is proven true is pelosi said we're not going to know what's in this until it passes. we are finding out what is true. i think it's a big riddler package, it's got question marks and know it was size of free war and peace, no one knows and it's interesting how obama and his administration they're tailoring it to what's popular and not. it's a midterm election, more republicans are going to vote at midterm elections, it's not going to be popular to implement the penalties which the irs -- neil: they are going to be doing something, right? >> let's look at this realistically. keep in mind, while 90% may not

be paying the penalties. the 90% of a pool that's been dramatically reduced. the number of uninsured has come down substantially. >> sick people are getting insurance, the healthy people need it otherwise it won't pay for itself. >> number two, as you know, david, i speak to ceos at health insurance companies on a regular basis, they are thrilled, they're making so much money they never thought it was going to happen, which leaves to number three, we're seeing the projections of the premium costs for next year, shockingly low -- >> they are thrilled because they get a subsidy. neil: and even -- [inaudible]. neil: even those who get subsidies, noelle, aren't qualifying for them, i suspect they're going to get them, they are not counted as enrollees if

they don't. projections have soared a lot. >> no, they haven't. no. the last four years is the lowest increases we've had since we started keeping track. how can you say that. neil: seven big insurance companies, 42% for the average american during that period of time. since this became law. 42%. i guess what i'm asking you is now, are we counting subset group getting a pass, it's getting allowances, breaks, provisions. what are you counting? >> subsidy does not relate to that. neil: back to your claim they're not paying more? >> i'm saying health care costs number one are lower. number one. you're not going to argue that, are you? neil: certainly i will. >> since obamacare was implemented since october of last year? of course, we were in a recession, people pay less for health care when we're in a

recession. neil: and you're crediting the law for this, crediting the law for this and the beginning saying it was law, it wasn't a recession. >> it was in part based on the recession but also based on the law. more importantly. neil: and you're premiums have gone up? have yours? no, really? >> no. neil: noelle? >> neil, as long as i've been doing this show, don't mess with neil knows facts and figures. neil: look at the insurance company, i know them myself, i pay them myself, we as a large group. >> indicative of -- neil: no, no, no, the seven sisters, their rates, premiums, charges and by and large most americans are facing. >> since october, since obamacare? neil: bottom line you think it's much ado about nothing, you think it's something, you think politically it's going to hurt the democrats. >> absolutely it's going hurt the democrats. >> it's not going to be part of the election.

>> really? you don't think it's part of the election. >> wrong, i worked for john bozeman, he won because of the health care. >> it's not going to have anything to do with it. neil: thank god in the middle of this, finally good news. there's a new chevy volt coming! ñ@ç@çpçpçpç÷ñoxmhmhyhyhyhyhy

. neil: my little volt jolt. let's go back. the volt is the dumbest car i've seen, it's going to lead to a lot of divorces. >> i watch car commercials. >> it is stupid. >> someone said it is car of the year. >> going to lead to marital dischord. i thought you were going to plug it in. it stinks!

they're not buying this thing. that was my view of auto press. not a fan of this. i just don't like any car you have to plug in. i still concern about the plug-in thing, i own a hybrid myself, i just don't think these things click and now we've got a new volt to show you that's supposed to change my mind, david. >> tesla costs $100,000. is that the new volt? >> is that as fast as it goes? >> like ungar arriving for the show. [ laughter ] >> faster my man! faster! >> the fact is by the way, tesla which has $150,000 car or whatever, they're trying to come out with a car for the middle class, like a 30,000, $40,000 car. neil: how far does it go? >> 300 miles. it doesn't, people want the big

what used to be gas-guzzlers, the suvs conserve gas a little bit. neil: fall back on regular conventional engine, just in case. the word old fogies comes -- i guess it is two words, comes to mind. >> the word very tiresome comes to mind. >> apple computer, it will never work. >> do i like it? i wouldn't own one, they wouldn't be making it again. >> government motors, two words for you, government motors, please the masters. >> even my generation, we look at the volt as a wah-wah. not excited about it. neil: i don't doubt they're improving this, tesla is a big leap in this direction, i said this many times, it's going to come down to i thought you plugged it in. i thought you plugged it in.

and it's going to lead to a lot of divorces. >> tesla is sexy, there is nothing sexy about the volt. >> that was a hot looking sdmoor my gosh, it was going 2 miles an hour! >> that's the volt we were looking at? that was the volt. really? >> the volt, the leaf. david only goes two miles an hour, too [ laughter ] . >> okay. now it only looks. neil: i never sit in a car i can't fit in. noelle, you, you could. >> i have no interest in owning the volt. the electric thing, where would i use it? neil: you're looking at ungar bringing it here. that's why you're late all the time. >> electric cars have been around for 100 years, the american public doesn't buy the concept. >> they're buying the tesla. >> the tesla is $100,000. >> california gives this big

rebate if you buy one, they give one. neil: i'm not dismissing the potential of this, and they might get it, there you get it up to 500 miles on a tank, tesla is the closest thing i see, the most expensive of the bunch. not buying here. >> i don't think tesla will be able to manufacture a $30,000 electric car the american public is going to buy. >> gm would like you to be the paid spokesman for the volt. how do you feel? >> no way, jose! >> neil wants the phone number. neil: everything comes with a price. [ laughter ] >> i think look at the hybrid vehicles that are not exclusively electric, and there's obviously an appetite for this stuff. but not electric exclusive. >> but it's showing that the appetite is varying toward the higher end luxury cars. there are a lot of friends that have the hybrid tahoe.

neil: that's an oxymoron, the hybrid tahoe. 8 feet a gallon? >> that is what's selling. gas prices are up. neil: want to thank you, one of the best shows we've had in hours. [ laughter ] >> thank you very much. what is the deal with teens not wanting to work this summer. what is wrong with you kids! when folks think about what they get from alaska, they think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.

we're changing the way we do business, with startup ny. we've created tax free zones throughout the state. and startup ny companies will be investing hundreds of millions of dollars in jobs and infrastructure. thanks to startup ny, businesses can operate tax free for 10 years. no property tax. no business tax. and no sales tax. which means more growth for your business, and more jobs. it's not just business as usual. see how new york can help your business grow, at startup.ny.gov

>> what is the deal with president still strong arming big business? walgreen stock tanking, after the management was caught blinking, shelving its plan to take advantage of a legal loophole to escape some of the opressive taxes of this country. how about we cut taxes here,

then companies would have no reason to leave. kip e-mails, the business hates -- ha president hates businesse. >> doe kyle, i'm a ceo, i hate e fund managers, but why do you in media let them get away with these absurd jen arealities. and steven in virginia suspects that hedge fund managers are part of the problem, maybe if they get out of the hamptons and hang out with homeless and broke, they could see what the real world is like. and 7 trillion in debt added under president obama's watch. eleanor, good for you. you are first journalist to

correctly point-out we should not celebrate the deficit because they are no longer trillions. thank you, my points was and is any deficit adds to the debt, even if we wipe them out, unless we build up a huge surplus. just cost of building that up will add up. >> shawn, i hate when do you basic math. it depresses the hell out of me. me too, but then there are the facts. you and larry widger discussed, cutting the federal budget. a reduction of 50% would make much more sense. i work for county, state and federal government, there is note one agent that i worked for that half of the cost was not wasted. neil, you are too smart to be too stupid. u.s. has 18 trillion in

liabilitys, we also have assets, $150 trillion worth of oil and gas reserves under the ground that the government owns. tell 20 trillion, we have no debt. mike, i can't conform your numbers -- confirm your numbers, but are you right, we have assets but the government controls many of them, i say we could sell a lot. why aren 't mor more teens workg this summer? cliff, maybe they are lazy. todd, teens don't want summer jobs because the return on investment ins too small, 40 hours a week for 3 months equals $3480 before taxes. it will pay for books and little else, what is the incentive? oh, i don't know todd, how about self respect! and why do gto

work when your parent will be your atm . >> in my day, me got off our ass, and took what we could get, dam damn lazy kids. they just stay on the couch, which means, all of this is your fault, hat head. -- fat head, i don't know where you get your numbers, but i find you offensive, stop watching. how could so-called news programs be on for decades and not get tweaked for even one iotta. i am going in this this one, my fox news show has been on air since fox news began 18 years

ago, but that is when bill clinton was president, not ranald reagan it has been tweaked many times, only thing that has stayed same is my perfect cyborg hair. just once, wish you could keep your ho mouth shut so we could r what your guests have to say. your comments are not humorous, william, don't watch then, go, scoot. i'm waiting. okay he is gone. mike in maya angelou, want to let you know that my best laugh of the day is what is your deal segment, you get a chance to trash people who trash you. keep up those great replays. jimmy, e-mails, neil you are not funny. jimmy, you are not nice. go. now. okay.

two people gone. i think when i push those out that hundred morse coms more co, because i defended the virtue of the s watching. john: a hundred years ago americans could travel without a passport, and we didn't have to show an i.d. when buying beer or checking into a hotel, taxes were low, and businesses relatively unregulateed, america became prosperous because of that. and without a minimum wage. ys saw their wages doubled. it seems like it is either pro heub i said or mandateed. -- prohibited or mandateed. do we live in a p police state? is big brother here? i don't know, but i'm here, with several thousand people.