>> thanks. looking forward to having neil cavuto back next week and catch me on fox business "making money" monday through fridays. and thefor business continues, the place for business, fox. has been flat since 2003. responding to an emerging infectious disease threat this is particularly damaging. >> cut. >> that was the left hook. >> cut, cut. >> the right cross the sequestration. >> boy, talk about an ebola blame game. that new ad from a liberal group blaming republican budget cuts, supposedly, for ebola deaths at the same time the head of the national institute of health also blaming cuts for not having an ebola vaccine, and now calls for more money. but would the nih have more money if it didn't fund things like studying the behavior of drugged monkeys or whether male

fruit flies prefer younger or older fee main flies? the list goes on. is it a spending cut problem or a priority problem? let's go in focus to find out with elizabeth macdonald, rich, bill along with john tamny and rick unger. john, you say forget the spending cut blame game. we shouldn't be spending what we are spending? >> absolutely. if ebola is the big risk that people say it is, you want to slash federal spending and you want to do that, because you want to leave as much money as possible in the private sector where it will find innovators in search of a cure. the reality is, innovators like thomas edison do not work for the federal government. seems foolhearty to think we should fund more waste on the way to a cure. >> bill, on the opposite end pup say definitely spend more mon? >> definitely spend more money. the budget of the cdc has in fact more than doubled in real terms after inflation since the turn of the century, but you could also say the same thing

about spending on combating terrorism and the harsh truth is, if we want to start either pandemic or terrorist wes have to post sentries on every corner of the bloeb and spend more money developing technology. >> to bill's point, it isn't really true what the ad claims. in fact, in the past two years at "the washington post" reported, the cdc actually, the congress, the republican congress, gave the cdc more money twhhan what the white hou wanted to give the cdc. >> right, david kn. no shortage of funds, of common sense and backbone. we've seen it time and time again. the cdc budget up more than nine times since the '70s. they get more than $900 billion, all sorts of assistant secretaries who actually can be ebola czars, there, ñkasv5 when the anthrax thing happened in the early part of last decade, the cdc got more money

for biopreparedness and shut down things like ebola. i don't see why we need to throw more money at it. we need more money with spines in washington, d.c. >> rick, by the way, "the washington post," i mentioned the article. they gave that ad four pinocchios. the long nose pinocchio, their way of saying it was lie. >> look, i saw the ad. i thought the ad was ridiculous, but let be honest, everybody. the both sides who are playing this absolutely inappropriate stupid blame game. i've got to say to john's point, deeply flawed, simply because, thank god, ebola does not come along in the world enough to motivate a drug company, a private industry to make the investment to find a cure. saying, you do need government. let's have the discussion about budgets after we get past this problem. i will be thrilled to participate in it then. right now, let's worry about getting rid of ebola. >> but to john tamny's point, look what the nih is spending money on. we pensioned a couple. here are a couple more things.

vital interests to the nation they're spending money on pap government study finding out wives should calm down. that was $325,000. and we're not eck joking. listen to this, tune into reruns and feel better. a study suggesting that watching television reruns makes people feel better. about $700,000. >> well, look, i agree that most wives and husbands, too, if you gave them $325,000, they would feel a lot better. >> calm down. >> but, you know, david, this -- these are small, relatively trivial, easy to make fun of. the larger issue is the one pointed to, on what basis should we have any faith, either in the cdc or the administration to manage this ask they make the most ridiculous statements. tom frieden of the cdc, who easy had the cdc, can't even decide whether it's safe to ride on a bus or not. i mean, you know, these are the things that they're struggling

with while this -- while ebola threatening to break out, and john tamny a political side as well. dr. francis collins, heads up the nih, he came out with his statement saying that perhaps republican budget cuts were caused problems with ebola. here's what he had to say. he came out with it at about exactly the same time as this ad was issued. makes you wonder whether people inside the nih are actually lobbying against the republicans? >> yeah, i think there's something to this. i will say i kind of like that spending on calming wives down, but overall -- >> you recently got married, we can report that. >> that's right. yeah. >> come on. >> a little -- >>alities bit of federal spending that i see merited in. but overall, i almost would say that conservatives and republicans need to calm down here. here's a perfect opportunity for them to say, we side with the president. we don't see where the president would have any skill in fighting

infectious diseases or fighting viruseses. let's work today, get the funding back to the private sector where you can actually fix this. not by government, for obvious reasons. >> bill, why do you support government getting more money, then? >> i vo it agree the cdc is often very distracted. they spend a lot of time and effort fighting smoking or lectures ar tobacco or lecturing about obesity and should be focusing on epidemics, and i don't think private industry can deal with epidemics. it just doesn't work. >> eechl-mac, it's clear workin tandem with republican advocates that they will spend money on stuff that is not vital to the national interest, but vital to special interests, within the government? >> yeah. political pork projects, and when something happens, it becomes about as precedent at an elvis presley sighting. you don't see where these guy. tell you something, time and again we have these guys spending like vegas drunks,

right? an insult to vegas drunks. the question is, who's going to take charge? now we have an ebola czar. do we really need another ebola czar, david? like passing the hot potato. that's what's going on, a lot of passing of the buck. >> rick, as we've seen, back to the political point for a second. in the past two years, the republicans have actually given more money than the president's own budget requested for the cdc. that was in 2013 and 2014. >> thank you. >> shouldn't the president disavow this ridiculous ad? >> i think, you know -- actually, i'm -- i don't know if the president's going to do it or not. as i said in the first part, big mistake. republicans making mistakes, but i have to say this -- what you said about the nih. i don't know if it's -- look, i'm alive today, truly, because of the nih. you could argue that's not in the public interest. there are those who would say that, but to me it's not about public interest. i'm alive, because of what the nih did. >> a study that helped you out

with medicine? >> created a drug that kept me alive. >> all right. john tamny, what about that? you love your friend rick eng want him to live longer. don't you? >> and i want him around for so many reason, but just because the nih created something that kept him around doesn't mean that private sector wouldn't have done it much more effectively and cheaper. >> but they didn't. >> they funded it. >> you can't know that. you can never know, because you're talking about -- you have to consider the unseen. all the cures that have never taken place, precisely because government knows no bounds and is consumes massive amounts of limited capital on things we don't need. >> and rich in for the final word. what do you think? aren't there some things the nih does well we need them to do to keep people like rick alive? >> i shows that's true, but john make as great point. john is really talking, i think, about the fda. the fda makes it difficult to bring any new drug to market. so expensive. so time consuming. you know, that's where i think you would pull back funding.

probably not at the nih. >> all right. last word from the publisher of forbes. if the government won't ban flights from ebola-stricken areas, one u.s. college may be teaching us how to do it ourselves. that's on "cashin' in." but first right here, ebola, isis, and climate change? what the defense department just declared an immediate and costly threat to our national security that has some people here calling it insanity.

eastern with julie bandarras for a brand new hour of news. when you think of a media threats to our national security, probably think of ebola, isis, maybe even russia, but climate change? well, secretary of defense declaring climate change an immediate threat this week, and, mike you say that's one costly declaration. >> david, hagel is pushing the president's far left agenda. this is the same agenda that

says al qaeda's decimated. no, not true. isis is the jv team. no, that's not true. same thing with this. it's simply not the government's job to use the military to combat climate change. >> and, rick, according to a recent poll, here's what americans consider most important to their interests in terms of immediate security threats. one, economy, jobs. two, terrorism. immigration. you have to go way down to the bottom. only 3% there at the very bottom think climate change is of immediate concern. >> yeah, look, i acknowledge i'm troubled by the word "immediate." maybe it's how you define it. i would define it in the next fur years and don't really believe that this is a national security problem in the next few years. however, if, and i'm underlining the word "if" so we don't have to have that debate. if you believe there's climate change taking place, whether naturally or man made, then it's not that hard to see how that does translate into the situation that would, in fact,

be a problem for our national security. >> let's really spell it out. this is specifically what the defense department said, and i'm quoting them now, "climate change will affect the department of defense's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to u.s. national security." that came out right in the middle of all of these genuine crises that are happening right now. >> well, david, the immediate rick is that the democrats are going to lose the senate, and the only hope they have of keeping the senate is to rally the base. so what this is all about is rallying the base, and chuck hagel should be ashamed of himself. you know, he was once an independent republican, and now he's a puppet for a desperate administration. >> sabrina, why the pentagon? why the defense department? of all places. if, as rich says, this is all political about uniting the base before the election, get some other department to do it. maybe epa or something? >> well, no. rich took the words out of my

mouth. mid-term elections less than a month away and most americans are favoring the gop when it comes to foreign affairs. if you're not leading on ebola and not leading on isis, you have to find something to lead on and democrats want to take the climate change portfolio to the american people, but this is simply aalarmism that's run amuck, insulting to american voters and terrible. >> the weather's not helping in this argument. more broadly, it speaks to a s brat in search of a mission and should scare people regardless of views on warmly global. if this is going to get into science, that means it's getting into things that put our troops in harm's way. we've got to streamline their mission precisely, because we want to be safer's this is dangerous. >> and, mike. getting to a broader point at what the purpose of government is, it is to protect us. it's gone into all sorts of nanny state variations of that, in terms of, you know, protecting us from cradle to

grave, but just protecting us from immediate threats. we do have those threats. ebola, isis, et cetera. is there any circumstance under which climate change could be considered an immediate threat? >> david, i really don't think west point is going to start teaching the people that go there how to dispose of plastic bottles or tell them not to use fossil fuels. all of the brave men and women who have defended this country over the years, did so because they were taught, they knew how to fight. this whole thing, this -- this world that obama lives in, it's "alice in wonderland," has nothing to do with the real world, and that's really what's posing the big danger to this country. our president lives in the "al igs and wonderland" word. >> and, rick, nobody knows how to prioritize as well as the military. they have to prioritize a lot of things. are we really in the business now of having our military take part -- even assuming for a moment there is some danger from climate changes, or is there any reason the military should be involved with that? >> a couple things.

first to michael, i have to say, it may interest you to know i've been hired to teach bottle disposal at west point next semester nap aside. >> talk about -- >> and to rich's point, the chart david shows us a few moments ago disproved the politics of what you're saying. it's the lowest on the list. trying to get political advance for the democratic base there ain't many people in there to convince. >> what do you say about that? >> look, because -- well, these elections, this is going to be a razor close election for the senate. on the margin, the hard-core sow supporters of the administration need to rally, they're dispirited from the economy and other things right now. >> sabrina? >> this has been part their ajeopardy da. climate change, part of the strategic planning division. it's interesting they're now trotting it out there in the weeks before the election. obviously, there's some kind of political motivation and i don't put it past democrats to know exactly who to target. >> last word from sabrina.

thank you, gang. gas prices are plunging abandoned saudis are helping by pumping out more of their oil, but is there real intonight kill off america's booming energy market? we report, you decide.

"i wasn't going to invite people over and when i saw what their homes looked like." "my kids couldn't go outside and play. they couldn't go to the park." "i didn't know where i was gonna go, what i was gonna do." "my other concerns were the leaks in the wall, the mice running around." "it was brutal. it was a scary, scary place to be."

"we're in darkness, but there is always a little bit of light, and if people help, the light becomes greater." "the fact that people want to help without getting anything in return." "they're experiencing your dream with you." "you can stand in your own house and say i helped build this!" "just walking into that house was the beginning of a different life." "happiness, peace, stability, are all the words that come to mind when i think of our home." "because of this house, i am free!" "because of this house, i'm home." you can change the lives of families in your community and around the world. join us. habitat, we build.

{door unlocking} hey, what's up? (door closing) how's it going? what are you doing? i can't believe you're watching this without me. we agreed we'd catch up on everything tonight. if i did this to you, you'd murder me in my sleep. you know what? just watch it by yourself. (sighs) i can't not know when i know that you know. the latest episodes of the top 100 shows are preloaded and ready to watch with xfinity on demand. gas prices taking a dive as

oil tanks. that all sounds like good news. right? some say saudi arabia is pumping more oil to help drive down prices in order to kill off our own competing energy boom near the u.s. rich, these lower prices could hurt u.s. fraccers. right? >> yeah. it could, because if you look at the shale oil boom, they're not profitable unless oil is over $70 a barrel, because it's very expensive the horizontal drilling and fracking, to go that far down and get it. but, look if it happens, this is good for everybody else, because low oil prices and low gasoline prices is just what the global economy and u.s. economy needs right now. >> but emac, just as we're about to become energy independent, this is happening. it's tough on u.s. domestic producers, right? >> oh, yeah. a little mom and pop shop. a lot of those guys are in this space and rich is absolutely right. it's more expensive to pull oil out via fracking than for saudi arabia.

the central bank of oil. so saudis have 3/4 trillion in reserves, they can take a hit if oil prices go down. i think russia is trying to stick it to iran and trying to stick it to russia, the saudis want to get into china space and displace russia in that area. that's part of it, too. >> i don't have tears over russia and venezuela, but we the united states, becoming strong competitors to the saudi arabians. item a lot of people saying will will exceed if we haven't already in terms of oil production. how do we deal with the saudis? >> expect what a competitor does. grab back the business they lost to rich karlgaard's friends in north dakota. i don't think it's bad as rich does. it's expected this will help the economy. >> help the economy, mike, but perhaps hurt u.s. producers and hurt our ability to become independent. >> well, david, the price of oil

has fallen primarily because the dollar's gotten stronger. it's not going to hurt the profitable area of u.s. production are oof oil. not from fracking but the atlantic shelf. prices are lower. very profitable for u.s. producers. >> but sabrina if it does hurt fracking some say it will, i think it's a two-for for the president of the united states, right before the election, price of gas goes down and he gets to help kill off the fracking business, because you know he hates that. right? >> well, you know, you may be on to something, and you know i'm a big supporter of fracking. the bigger issue, this is good news, because it means that competition means it will be better prices for the consumer, for business, economic growth all around. the fact is that the saudis have something to be worried about. the united states has, in fact, surpassed them in oil extraction. that is making things tougher for them, but i think the fracking industry and natural gas are here for long term. we don't have the to worry about that.

>> from your lips to god's ears. thank you, gang. coming up, talk about an unstable market. don't fret. besides this, your profits, coming up next.@?

. and we are back with stable stocks in a very unstable market. emac, abbott labs. >> and m & a target drug division, upward flow six years. >> and focus on it first. if it's an m & a target, the stock could really spike gentleman. >> maybe. sleepy stock good for heart patients. no rick that a sudden spurt in the stock price will make your pulse go up. >> talk about sleepy stocks, chevron, sounds like a sleepy stock to me. >> no, no. gone up a lot more. definitely a stock for people worried about rising dploogasol

prices. >> no way. hasn't moved in three years. this stock is stuck where it was in 2012. >> contrarian notions today. thank you. that's it for "forbes on fox." thank you for watching. have a wonderful weekend. keep it right here.the number o continues with "cashin' in" and eric bolling. controlling the contagion as ebola scares keep popping up in america. a majority of americans want to ban flights from the ebola breakout zone, since we can't trust our government to do it or anything, we the people are starting to take matters into our own hands. plus -- >> higher education shouldn't be a privilege for those able to afford it. >> now hillary to hypocrite. mrs. clinton raking in a cool $225 grand for a college speech about, wait for it, soaring college tuition. making it obvious. the president's hopeful drowning in hypocrisy and then -- >> a tree fell on blake abbot.