s.p.y., go with the indexes, you can almost never beat them. just go for it. longer term, you like this market. >> longer term, your lifetime yes, my lifetime maybe no. >> oh, stop. it continues now. hit i isis and putin where it hurts while helping americans here at home. pump more oil in the united states and export it overseas to push down energy prices eve everywhere. ronald reagan did something similar to that. would it work again? welcome to "forbes in focus." sabrina, does it sound like a good idea? >> it sure does. not only would it bring the cost of oil down here at home, but putin's regime is largely made up of income from his oil and

gas exports. we could decrease the important commodity for them and give us leverage in terms of helping stop some of the 'gression we are seeing today. >> and steve, not to mention it would help consumers, oil prices have come down precisely as we've had the 17% increase in domestic production right here. it's good for consumers and bad for putin. sound lieic a double whammy. it would be. the key thing, too, is the dollar has been stable. that's what happened in the 1980s. another thing we should look at is stepping up approval of licenses to export natural gas. liquefied natural gas. that would knock his power down, into you western europe is now dependent on russian gas. if we were exporting cheap gas, that would take away significant, a strong dollar, increased production, we could do a lot of things to anything oil production here in the u.s.?

>> david, unless we do more of what reagan did, the impact of what you just said is going to be very marginal. if we saided to feed isis and put putin in retreat we would have to build up our military, which this president has completely undercut. >> but one of to start somewhere. >> energy is the weapon in the arsenal that we can use. look at what happen. john, tammy and steve are absolutely right. it left gorbachev scrambling at the end. we've had seer turmoil in the middle east, oil goes down. turmoil in venezuela every time oil goes down. the reason why putin is in the ukraine is the big gas and oil reserves. >> good point. john, we should mention something, all this oil

production increase, yes the dollar has something to do with it, but it's on private lands. we could increase oil production much more if they released the public land rights. those have gone down tremendously under president obama. federal drilling permits have gone down from 66,000 in 2008 to -- excuse me 6600 in 2008 to 3700 in 2013. so increase oil production and it's good for everybody? >> well, i'm all for that, but the reagan model is a lot simpler, a stronger dollar brings down the oil prices, it has little to do with pumping the oil. what that would do is a magnet for investment into the united states, it would boost our economy at the same time while bringing down commodities across the board, and it would hurt those countries, a lot of these backward countries that are relying on commodities. you fix the dollar, you win this. >> rick, there's nothing wrong with nicking oil production here

in the u.s., is there? >> not necessarily, but i think --ite to say john brought up a very critical point. i think we all agree that if we can do something to put more pressure on putin, we all agree that's a great idea. the problem is the united states can't do it alone the oil companies that suffering from reduction in -- they might have something to say about this and may not be so anxious to play along. that's why john is right. there was more government policy during the reagan area and how it played out. >> i don't know about that. >> let's get something straight here. the reason why mainstream reps did not want ronald reagan is he was not a chronny capitalist. he didn't care what the big companies thought about, obama does and so do the mainstream republicans. >> hold on a bit. is a britain article are they do the right things for their profits, they have beening inning oil production, yes the price has been going on, but

they increased their market share and could do it much more if they allowed us to export oil overseas, which we don't have right now, and tremendous demand in places like jammen, south korea, i think one thing that he hit on that is correct is we do need more support from our european allies. so forget just oil and gas. it's also natural gas. we are not quite ready do export it, but maybe as early as 2015 we can, and this could cut down on russia -- they provide 30% of your natural gas. this could be cut down tremendously for that, and to help us more in some of these conflicts. >> and putin -- ronald reagan did drive russia, steve, into bankruptcy in the 1980s. we could do that again. i mean, they have 68% of all their exports come from oil. if we bring down the price of oil, that would hurt russia a lot. >> it would, as john mccain said russia is a gas station today and there's not much el to the economy and would quickly drive

it. already much of russia's oil is above the prices of the world oil. to have europe help us out would be good. in with article, germany and france now virtually banned fracking for natural gas. if they ramp that up, that would be another nail in putin's coffin. >> i don't want to forget about isis, either. yes, they are growing, as they grow, their expenses grow, too, and teal become more dependent on selling the oil in their territory. they're making about $3 million a day right now from oil. if we bring down that cost, they're costs will go up. that will hurt them. >> that's exactly right. it's real expensive to run a government. isis is figuring that out. their expenses are much higher than the money coming in. that's the ticket. i say drive isis off the face of the earth by lowering the price of oil, by doing more oil exports from the united states,

andivity to address john again. when oil prices spiked in the '70s, because of the weak dollar policies -- remember, the dollar was really weakening, carter was driven out of office. that also led the demise of a -- >> by the way, let's just make it real simple, john, ronald reagan liked a strong dollar, period. it was that simple. he said a strong dollar recent a strong economy. nothing wrong for being for a strong dollar by releasing some of these permits on federal land, is there in. >> there's nothing wrong with it. i'm just saying they would be producing less oil here in we had a strong dollar. the '70s and 200s were the big booms in the u.s. it's when the dollar strong that investment goes into higher margins, so strong dollar would lead us back into the economy of

the pro-growth, and also bring down some of our perceived enemies around the world. you don't need to pump oil -- it's a strong dollar that works. >> if we released the do mist fick oil producers here, gave them the chance to export their oil, our oil over to europe. wouldn't it be better for the europeans to be dependent on us, not putin? >> absolutely. but you've got to respond. look, it's not about the u.s. -- it's not about ronald reagan not caring what the oil companies thought. the oil companies are the ones who drill it, pump it and sell it. it's not the united states government. let's not confusion things here. i agree with your point, david, but you've got to keep in mind we as the united states are not going to be selling anybody oil. you have to maybe make it in a way so the oil producers wand it. >> hold on a second.

sabrina, they've already been doing it. that's the point. oil producers have been producing more. we are now number one for oil production for the entire world bigger than saudi arabia, bigger than russia. we are producing more. shouldn't we keep encouraging that trend? >> that trend as well as the natural gas. we are now outpacing russia on natural gas. both areas are a tremendous opportunity. the oil companies do see this opportunity, where they would not like to be dependent on russia for their supply. i think companies will fall in line with this. >> bottom line, we've run out of time, first and last word from sabrina. president obama's big speech to take on isis, missing a big threat on how they want to sneak across our borders. first, buying marijuana with welfare benefits. it's happening and it's totally

legal. is it time to send that benefit up? smoke? 1 in 3 people over the age of 60 the most amazing sounds of life have gone missing. conversations with friends... birds singing... the joy of children's laughter. and there are so many damaging reasons for this. often the first sign is when people who are speaking loudly and clearly now sound like they're mumbling. at connect hearing, we can change that... with award winning hearing aid technology...

and solutions to fit every budget. call this number now or go online to arrange a complimentary hearing evaluation at a connect hearing center. you'll get 3 full weeks to try these amazing hearing aids absolutely free! with hearing aids this advanced and discreet, there's no reason to miss out on the sounds of life anymore. connect hearing has locations clear across the country and often right around the corner. call today for your free no obligation 3-week hearing aid trial and stay connected. call (800) 433-0243 for your free 3-week hearing aid trial!

investigated for domestic abuse. what are they smoking in washington, d.c.? the federal government saying it is legal for welfare recipients to use their taxpayer-funded benefit cards to buy marijuana at legalized pot shops. >> the nanny state gone berserk. >> i don't know if they're

inhaling or drinking kool-aid, but the nation is going to pot or whatever you want to call it, when it does something like that. absolutely not. in terms of enforcement there are weighing to do it. if people want to find ways to get around it, make them have to work to do it. food stamps are for food, not for other stuff. >> according to hhs, they can stop people for use it for alcohol, but they can't for pot. to me this shows our welfare state is totally out of control. >> i'm sitting here using my welfare money -- excuse me. >> go ahead. >> look, i think what you're seeing he is that some states are not legalizing marijuana. i think it will, but at the same time if we're going to go all nanny state on pot in this regard, should we not be including sugar on the list and

other things that might be doing people harm? >> i think we should include anything that people don't need. potheads don't need my tax money, okay? >> that's a good point. did i mention, david, i thought they were called food stamps, not pot stamps? >> here is the memo. this is the letter that was sent to senator jeff sessions by the head of hhs. she says hhs has no authority to prescribe policies and practices for the states to implement in order to prohibit the use of tanf benefit cards at marijuana stores. the fed is saying we could stop it. >> two problems. food stamps are meant for family who need food. we have to saved program for people in poverty. i am for that. i want to help people in poverty. the second problem is why is the federal government leaving it up to the states with what is done with our federal dollars. that's the issue. >> mike believes there's a

safety net, but does not believe in this nanny state where every time somebody has a sniffle, the government comes in and wipes their nose. >> i agree totally. my only question is if we can't stop people who don't get food stamps from using pot, what makes us think we can stop people who do get food stamps from buys pot? >> that's a good question, but it kind of goes in line with what this administration has been doing, the number of recipients of food stamps, the definition of what welfare is has expanded enormously with president obama. >> well you could argue that maybe you want to use medicaid to pay for medical marijuana. that's very different from food stamps. using taxpayer moan for recreational pot, i am opposed, but we actually already have that. on the black market you can sell your card, and buy pot, liquor, strippers with the cash you get.

i'm loathe to agree with rick, all you get is healthy food. let's see if michelle obama will sign on. >> the fact is, what this show, again, is welfare -- we used to make jokes about the english welfare systemo the french welfare system. we are now a joke, are we not? >> oh, absolutely. in terms of going up to the store and saying you can only have healthy food, define healthy food, david, as to what we just heard in terms of salt. we are told for years, reduce salt. now they say reduce salt you're going to have more chance for stroke and heart attacks and god knows what else. i don't mind people using food stamps if they want sugar or something else, but for pot, no. booze? no. >> and rick, to your point about we shouldn't be subsidizing sugar, i kind of agree, but the fact is the government is expandic what the government should do to sup an extent that

it's practically everything. it's such a broad swath now, but see, here's where we get into a problem? steve, after saying that we don't know what's going to be unhealthy or not, he proceeded to define what he believes ton elt healthy. >> that's why the government should be be in that business. >> i agree. i agree. we do know what's unhealthy, and i absolutely agree, and -- >> e-mac, steve brings up a point, it is not food. we have to get back to common sense guiding government. >> we're talking about government creep, government overreach. >> we're talking about government creeps. >> stay with me. we've got to talk about this quickly. politicians treat their own elected offices like their own entitlement programs. oftentimes they use these programs to bakley keep themselves in power in their own -- where they are elected

from. >> bottom line, mike, i don't want my tax dollars funding dopeheads. i don't. >> it sounds to me -- >> all right. next, fore! the pga accusing the e. epa of going completely out of bounds with a power grab.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ create a better website at squarespace.com start your free trial today.

the pga teeing off on the epa. the pro golfers joining more than 30 groups say the new proposed clean water regulation is a dirty trick. steve, you say there's more green overreach that would smack more than just golfers, right? >> they're trying to turn mud puddles into the equivalent of the mississippi river, which would be more power. you look at what they have already done in california, destroyed a huge agricultural state. they'll do this to the whole country. mud puddles and little ditches are not the same as the mississippi river. >> and a president who practically lives on a golf course -- >> i'm shocked that the raised

the president and golf. i didn't see that coming. look, i've read the regulation. it's simply not as onerous as you want to make it out to be. it's a moderate redefinition to make things clear. you cannot be shocked that country clubs are worried about water. california is an example. >> i have yet to hear the pga sound off on the epa. >> rick may be right, but private property is just that. what the epa is doing amounts to a taking. anytime the federal government dictates what's gog on private land, it has a chilling effect. it's not about this one, it's what could be down the line. e-mac, we not the epa doesn't stop. >> water is a need. i don't mind the government overseeing water. look what enron did with the energy supply in california.

manmade ditches and ponds are exempt in this new rule. >> but sabrina, people have a little pond in their backyard that now. epa would control, not them. >> i don't think the pga is overreacting. it's a coalition of 35 groups saying this is the example of the ballooning state, it's a hidden tax on businesses. let's remember it's the epa leading the charge of agency imposing regulatory costs on businesses and individual families. i think they're absolutely right to step up on this. >> steve, ten seconds, overreaction by the epa? >> not at all. they hate political controversy, so they're going into this because they see a real threat. regulations now cost this economy $2 trillion, which every -- huge burden, got to start switching it back. coming up, the market hovering around record highs, but our informers say there's still plenty of deals out there. the stocks on s

we are back with some stocks that are actually on sale. >> shares out of ohio, strong, strong regional bank with great deposit growth. we like them. >> david, i love this company. it totally reconstituted its balance sheets since the recession. a tremendous amount of lending power. >> after the marijuana discussion, you have a drug start. >> i do.

i think this company will surprise. >> i agree, buy it on the dip. that's it for "forbes on fox." ttttt here. we continue with eric boling and s . \s. you're right, mr. president, isis is a threat, but it could go unchecked sneaking across our borders, even the homeland security department admitting it's a problem. are the immigration policies putting americans in danger? plus the nfl getting ready to drop on the ball on domestic -- we have proof the league might be getting a bum rap. and rush limbaugh, cashin' in starts right now.