long-term strategy right? ignore the gyrations short term. >> i don't have as long as adam does, but for my children and grandchildren. >> who must be can a change every day of their lives. "forbes on fox." it makes no sense to spend $3 million per prisoner to keep open a prison that the world con dems and terrorists use to recruit. it's time to close get bow. >> the president doubling down on his promise to shut down gitmo, he says it will save lives and money, but aren't released fwit mow detainees who go back to the battlefield costing all of us a lot more in the long run? we will come to "forbes on fox" let's go with mr. steve forbes, saab brianna shaver and rick younger and more. >> steve let's talk about the costs now and clearly a lot of those detainees from gitmo who

are redecembered go back to the battlefield, even chuck hagel has said at that, by the way, he said we know that some of the detainees that have come out of gitmo have gone back to the fight, the battlefield. that means they are costing us a lot of money when they commit terror. >> well that's right and it's not just money david it's also the fact that what price do you put on those mnt lives that these terrorists then go back and take? >> and gitmo is not a jail like it is in the united states, it's a prisoner of war camp and by the way the prisoners there are treated far better than most pow-s were in previous wars. the cost is not about cost. closing gitmo would be immensely costly they do go back to the battlefield and the idea that you can treat them like domestic prisoners is preposterous. this is a war. gitmo is a pow camp, period. >> rick, let's get back to what the president was saying. i know there are issues and we

can talk about them beyond the money, but the president said we would save money if we released the prisoners, but the costs of gist within terrorist act are enormous. >> i'm not going to support that approach because i don't think money is the issue here. look, i have always had two primary issues with gitmo, the first is i'm convinced it creates more terrorists than we keep out of the battle. that's my biggest problem. the second is i think it's fundamentally in violation of the way we as americans treat justice. you've got people there who were not taken off the battlefield, they were taken out of their homes, maybe correctly, by the way, they are not charged they do not get a trial. this is my concern. >> sabrina i know there is a concern there, we'll talk about it, but the president is the one who brought up the money issue. he said we would save money by releasing these prisoners. what do you think? >> i i think in the short term of course you might save some dollars and cents, but until the long-term it's going to cost us much more in terms of lives and money. i mean, also these people have

to be moved somewhere, if you're going to move them to a prison it's not that that doesn't cost us something as well. i think that's a very short sighted argument. the larger issue that this president has had his sites on closing gitmo from the day he entered office and he's determined to have those doors closed by the time he and off over the baton in january of 2017. the reality is that he is completely delusional that we are facing very serious islamic extremists and somehow he thinks that closing that will stop that. >> you think of where a lot of these detainees originally came from 76 are from yemen. yemen is the most mixed up terror filled country i know of in the world right now it is causing problems in the southern tip of saudi arabia it's -- that's where -- that's -- noise are the people who would be released, the worst of the worst. >> you know i'm reminded when you say this of something reagan said about the cold war and

soviet union, asked about his strategy he said, it's simple, we win, they lose. that should be the attitude about terrorism. but i think that obama makes one small point that is probably correct and rick mentioned it the gitmo you know is a pr disaster. i don't know why you can't disperse these people in federal maximum security prisons and if you have to use enhanced interrogation to get information that would save innocent lives there are other ways to do that and other places to do that. >> by the way i disagree with you both on that. i think that in fact terrorists would find plenty of other means to go to the battlefield if it wasn't for gitmo but emac again, about the costs. let's take the worst case scenario which is 9/11. god forbid there's another 9/11 attack but we are still calculating the costs of that some people put it if the trillions of dollars. >> trillions of dollars, you're right. u.s. director of national intelligence says 30% of the gitmo detainees have been released back into the terrorism battlefield.

by the way, if we put them in our prisons, they possibly could get lost in our prison structure and or radicalized even more prisoners to become terrorists. so i think it's cheaper to keep them at fwit mow, it adheres to international law piece yer trials under military commissions and i'll tell you something, they are not criminals who should get miranda rights but they do get habeas corp. pus. >> there was no gitmo before 9/11, there was no gitmo before the u.s. cole, there was no gitmo before the terrorist attacks on our embassies in africa i don't think that that argument has a lot of credibility. >> david it has zero credibility. it has as much credibility as president obama saying the reason why we wants to do this is to save money. he's the most prolific president when it comes to spending we have ever had. now all of a sudden he's concerned about saving a little bit of money at gitmo which actually saves american lives? it's preposterous.

>> steve do you credit at all the argument that rich and rick do that in fact this is a pr -- a good pr campaign for the terrorists, gitmo is? >> i think it was pointed out earlier that no matter what they need they're going to find something to use. again, 9/11 happened before gitmo and by the way, gitmo actually is something of a deterrent. nobody likes the idea of going to that start of the part of the world, being cut off from the rest of the word. if you capture somebody and say you're on your way to gitmo i think you're more likely to get information out of them. spending is preposterous, stimulus, just think of the world stim list and two this is a pow camp this is not the traditional justice system we have at home. so money is bogus issue. >> he does not want to fight a real war against terror. >> we also have the problem of those who are released going back into the battlefield, chuck hagel has admitted it, there are studies that 30% are either

confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorism. i mean it's not just an idle threat, it's not just hyperbole, this is real. >> i don't question that for a minute. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised if more than 30% go back but american justice values what about the other 70% being held without hearings without trials when they do get released they don't go back. doesn't excuse that they do. look, i think we all agree we don't want to see one more bloody terrorist getting out there to make are trouble for any of us in the world, but we're americans and we have to uphold american values at all times. >> sabrina i'm wondering if the president is upholding american values in terms of separation of powers because what he showed by the senator berg date of loss scandal he made the trade he doesn't care about -- he just does what he's going to do. >>? fact, there has definitely been people on the record who were suggesting that he was testing the waters to see how far he could push it without congress

pushing back. we are missing the larger point. united states could curl up in a fetal position we could drop israel as an ally, stop every kind of inflammatory cartoon that's out there we could do everything that they have on their little checklist, we can close get know it's not going to stop these terrorists from wanting to kill us and that is -- it is the point, rick. the reality is that we're missing the point. >> i want to go back to rich. have we convinced you at all? there was a lot of terrorist attacks before gitmo existed, these people didn't need any pr to get them to the battlefield before gitmo. >> you know, it's so unfair of you to pummel me with the facts like that david. [ laughter ] >> look, you know i think we should -- i want to see more enhanced interrogation, you know, you want to see enhanced interrogation, let's do enhanced interrogation, but let's do it, you know, in places that aren't so visible to the press that then becomes a bad pr. you can do it in safe houses, offshore other places. >> sorry, mike, a lot of

congress men david, and state senators saying not in my backyard. so we're spending a lot of money on those fights. >> got to be the last word from emac. coming up next president obama out touting his new plan to help the middle class but will it actually make it more expensive for the middle class to send their kids to college?

julie banderas. now back to "forbes on fox." well, the president says his new economic plan is all about helping the middle class, but tucked inside is a new tax on those very popular 529 college savings plans. millions of hard working americans use them to save for their kids' education. the white house claims by the way that 70% of the people taking advantage of these programs have incomes of over $200,000 a year, but the gao

disagrees. they say that more than 50% of the people have asking of less than $150,000. so is it or is it not a middle class plan? >> forbes.com had an article that endorses the gao point of view that 70% of these accounts are held by people who make less than $150,000 a year. by the way -- >> hold on a second. let's just focus -- i don't want to get -- okay. i don't want to get too much in the weeds. you are saying the white house was funneling the figures or coming out with wrong figures as the right figures were the ones that the gao kiem out with saying it was a middle class plan? >> yeah that's absolutely correct. >> rick, what do you say if. >> it's a touch more complicated. gao report in my opinion is correct and it's backed up by a study -- >> the white house is wrong. >> they're wrong in quoting that number, but let's not get confused about something. 529s work really well by the way, the white house is not saying do away with them they're saying change the tack free

status to tax deferred. the problem is the average american making 50 grand is year or thereabouts is not finding that they can take advantage of it. they don't have enough to contribute. don't get rid of the tax -- >> what he wants to get rid of is the primary benefit for the middle class. this is -- you know the middle class has very few tax breaks, the rich have tax breaks, the poor don't have to worry because they don't pay taxes this is something really for the middle class the president wants to get rid of it. >> what it's about is the redistribution of wealth. what the president wants to do is punish people who have been successful working hard, putting money in these plans and reaping the benefits. of course, it tends higher earning middle class people because they have higher tax rates than lower income people. he wants to tax those people more and have them not only pay for their kids' college but use that money to pay for other families' college as well. >> john, here is what i think shows that it's a middle class benefit. the average account size is $20,000.

we're not talking hundreds of thousands of -- $20,000 is the average size of these accounts. s this is a middle class program. >> yeah, but i think all of this misses the point. the very existence of 529 plans speaks to the problem of politically correct politicians subsidizing access to college education. implicit here is the idea that we want to make a college education more affordable but all these subsidies make it so that colleges don't have to compete on price. i say scrap all of these so that colleges do have to finally compete on price. that would help the middle class. none of this will. >> steve, what really gets under the skin of a lot of people who hear about this, the president himself took advantage of this. he front loaded a $240,000 contribution to his kids and now that he got the benefit, he wants to wipe it out for everybody else. >> yeah, david, this is part of a program to make people more dependent on the government. we know about his so-called free

college community program and also on this. by taking away a benefit from middle class people they're going to have to be for dependent on the government for government loans, more dependent on pell grant which makes them more dependent on barack obama which is exactly what he wants. if he was truly interested in reforming this whole tuition thing he would do as john recommends and scrap the programs, but the best way to do it, david, all of these things the best way is to get the plat tax where every savings was tax free. >> somehow i knew we were going -- >> bill, let me go to you. all this is going to do is raise student debt because more people are going to be focusing on getting something they don't have the money to faye for instead of saving for it and it's going to increase government's involvement in paying for student tuition. no? >> i'm with john. i say repeal the whole junk pile of subsidies, handouts, tax deductions, tax credits and all that other stuff on which higher education is growing a little too fast. if they were on their own dime

they would be hiring teachers who teach and they wouldn't be hiring diversity enhancement or whatever they're doing with the money. >> i love bill and john but they are -- we don't live in an ideal world. in this world we know what will happen. as a result of getting rid of this thing that helps savers and encourages savings, encourages responsible behavior in order to save we will have more government debt, more student loan defaults et cetera. no? >> yeah you're absolutely right. it does encourage responsible behavior and steve is right that the alternate plan is to hook people to government, but i think there's something else going on here. i think it's a shot at hillary clinton because her husband bill clinton this all came about in 1996 and obama is trying to turn hillary even further to the left. >> once again, the hard working americans in the middle are the ones who get skreed. the ones at the stop do fine it's the folks in the middle getting screwed. the "cashin' in" gang getting ready to roll at the bottom to

of the hour. >> deflate-gate ball gazy whatever you want to call it is it telling our kids it's okay to cheat to win and you tube pea no, ma'am row zel green eats fruit loops while significant in the mitt k in her own bathtub then lands a presidential interview. sue you at 11:30 eastern. >> up here first, you want to lower energy prices even more in america? some here say left the government's ban on selling oil outside america, but will it work?

a promise that hit the beaches of normandy. a vow that captured iwo jima.

a contract that weathered tet. a pledge that stormed the desert in iraq. an iou that braved ieds in kandahar. a promise was made. to america's veterans. dav fights to keep that promise. so all veterans and their families get the benefits and support they earned. for help, visit dav.org. u fill up my senses♪ ♪come fill me again♪

well there's still fighting over the keystone pipeline in d.c. but there's something that could could a lot more to pump up jobs and push down energy prices even further, that would be to end the 40-year-old ban on companies here from selling their oil overseas emac you say killing these ban is way overdue. >> get the government out of the way, get the federal reserve out of the day of dee valuing the dollar. that's what we need to do a true free market in oil. >> rick, should we get rid of this ban? it's 40 years old. >> do you know what, the time may have come to get rid of it i can see the argument, but the question i have, is this the right time? prices are all super low right now, people are losing jobs in the oil industry i don't know if this is the best time. >> steve it is the best time because people would get jobs if companies here were allowed to ex port oil overseas.

>> yeah i never thought i'd see the day that rick would be in favor of a higher oil prices and shaft the working people in america. some liberal you are. we do need free markets. this is a form of crony capitalism david helps certain refiners but hurts the american consumer. >> bill, it's free trade just open the doors allow these companies to sell their oil overseas. >> oil comes outs of a global pool and it can get consumers by directing the direction of one drop of oil is like saying we can cure the california brought by making it illegal for moisture evaporating from california farm lands to fall on canada. >> sabrina we're not looking for a cure we're looking for something to help. the oil patch is husht right now, the consumers are happy, but the oil patch is hurting. this would help build american jobs. >> i'm absolutely in favor of removing any kind of artificial barriers to trade.

i think one thing to keep into mind we have some housework at home to take care of. namely we want to repeal some of these epa regulations that are going to make it harder for american companies to compete overseas. so things like the renewable fuel standards something that are standing in the way. i think in order to have a really secure energy system we need to have that strong production we need to have that pipeline and make sure that refineries are able to get that competition overseas. >> john time to get rid of this ban? >> yes let's get rid of that which violates basic commission. they should be able to ex port let's be clear, this is not going to change the oil price, it's a global market, probably not even going to create jobs, but it's just an a front to dmon sense so let's get rid of it. >> all right. coming up, you heard about the tax hike plan on college savings accounts. well, i've got the stocks to pay for all those college bills and a lot more coming up.

@?

and we are back with the stocks to help you pay for college and a lot more than that. elizabeth, you love these funds of collections of stocks. >> that's right. >> particularly if they're large cap stocks. >> this is a cheap one glen meade large cap. has a 20% annual return for the last five years has a great stock picking team. >> bill, do you like it. >> sad but true it's almost impossible statistically for a big company fund to beat the market. >> what is kkr? why do you like it. >> these are the bench buyout boys who slurp up your tax money with their big fees, get some of it back own a piece of it. >> a lot of rich people that's who you would be investing in. ee k ma do you like that. >> if you like a crowd that overcharges investors and just got if trouble for it this is your stick. mike's fund has been beating the s&p and dowel for the last five years. >> is it a mistake to get individual stocks anymore? do you always go into tunds? >> get a safe dividend play

we're going to have a choppy ride right now. >> thank you all. that's it for "forbes on fox" from a wonder fortunately weekend. keep it right number one business block continuing with eric bolling and "cashin' in." i don't know what happened. i told you everything i know. >> it's the cheating scandal rocking america ahead of the super bowl. tom brady and coach bill bilicheck playing defense but america isn't buying it. "cashin' in" we're going to break into the cheating scandal that could be sending the wrong message to our kids, plus. >> no challenge. no challenge poses a brart threat to future generations than climate change. >> no really, mr. president? how about terror iran poverty, unemployment, civil unrest, i can go on and on. aren't these all a bigger threat than climate change? and then the leader of the free world getting interviewed by child you tube stars.