hold next five or ten years. >> adam. >> vanguard small cap etf. great way to diversify your portfolio. >> dr. stein. >> norfolk southern steel on steel is the way to move goods. >> all right. now go get rich. >> with terror threats on the rise new worries about the u.s. selling military equipment to countries with suspected ties to terror groups. one of these nations qatar getting $11 billion worth of arms last year alone. and as the president pow wow with their leader this week some law headachers sending a letter asking them to reassess those military sales. should we cut off all sales to all countries that have ties to terrorists. i'm david asman welcome to "forbes on fox." steve forbes, mike owe zaz yan, elizabeth mcdonald carrie she have leveled, bill and john tamny. mike, why are we arming folks

who help terrorists is this. >> because president obama has been down playing the threat that isis poses to america, going all the way back to the attack on the american cons late in benghazi. that's why he's warming qatar. even though qatar is definitely helping the terrorists in the middle east. john bowl ton has been warning about this for months now and ee jipt our ally has been warning us about that but the administration has totally ignored those warnings. >> we don't have to sell them arms. why are we doing it? >> i think you have to shed some of your idealism when you engage in foreign affairs. if you're too picky about your alliances you wind up fighting alone alone. imagine if we said we had refused to help the soviets height the germans because we were unhappy with stall lynn's human rights record. >> emac we made of a deal with soviets in world war ii. isis is as close to the nazis as you can possibly get now. why do we deal with any country

that gives them ep? >> you're right. here is the issue, it's really hard to do the carrot and stick approach for foreign aid and policy when you're dealing with a region writhe with religious fant sichl. i get it, i understand you want to curry favor and have some interest in the region to basically attack your enemies there, but what about moving the military base the airport there that the military uses in qatar move it to u kuwait, jordan or bahrain, that's been suggested. >> steve let's be specific here. qatar supports hamas, we designate hamas as a terrorist organization, there's a lot of evidence that they helped provide the seed money for isis and there are still some supporters in in qatar for that o. why do we deal with them at all? >> we deal with them because in that part of the world you have to ask yourself do we gain more than we lose? behind the scenes we should be putting effective pressure on them but don't forget if we don't sell them the arms the

russians chinese and french and sweeds will. you take saudi arabia saudi arabia is going to help israel when israel finally strikes iran. do we gain more than we lose. >> that's an going going thing. sadly that part of the world is not up and down just like it was not up and down in the cold war. we had to work with people we didn't like to work with. >> sometimes our rooelgs with qatar is too damn cozy. the contributions it made to the clinton foundation while hillary clinton was secretary of state. that's not right is it? >> you know, steve is right the question of arm sales is kind of a distraction here if we're not selling to them other arms dealers or other countries will. i guess my question is why -- you're right why the close relationship with qatar the federal government is required to depend for our national defense. i keep wanting the question answered how is our national defense enhanced by these involvements overseas particularly in the middle east. i think it's sbatable that maybe

we're less save. >> carrie, what do you think. >> i disagree. i've spent some time with qatar university, this country is fundamentally oriented to the west, we have huge campuses like georgetown cornell, texas a and mchl they all have presence in can qatar. this is a failure by the white house. the pentagon wants to keep the air force base there it's the white house that is failing to step up and be with our allies in the same way they've been with israel and saudi arabia. so i see it as a failure by president obama not by qatar. >> mike, i do think back to the times before world war ii when everybody was saying the japanese they dress like us, they talk like us they appreciate our literature et cetera, when in fact they turned out to be bruts on the battlefield. you know, again, you've got to be aware of the superficial view of somebody rather than what their residence is. >> it all comes back to what type of return are you getting and i don't think we've gotten our moneys worth from qatar. i think qatar has been too cozy with the terrorists there and particularly let's not forget

terrorists that also want to harm israel and i think netanyahu is really the one adult in the room here. i think this is the person that we've got to listen to in terms of national leaders right now, unfortunately not the president obama. >> and steve -- >> here is the thing -- >> steve the only organization or nationality that's really willing to go all in and fight isis are the kurds, the kurds are not getting the weapons they need from us. we're giving all this weaponry to turkey, for example i think turkey got about $6 billion worth of our weapons and yet we're not giving weapons or even selling weapons to the kurds that they need to really fight isis. >> that's a different question aside from qatar. we should obviously be arming the kurds and talk about europe, another part of the world where we should be arc arming the ukrainian against putin's aggression. in the case of qatar one reason why they're trying to play both sides of the fence they're wondering where the u.s. is going to be a stead fast ally.

in terms of benjamin netanyahu and israel they are working behind the scenes with the saudis who have been doing some things from time to time that we don't like. but, again, is it more help 51% versus 49 in that part of the world that's the kind of question you have to ask. >> emac, the turks seem to be less close than the kurds do. the turks a lot of evidence that turks had too cozy relationship various times with isis. >> it reminds of me of that quote from kissinger about the president he has all these chess moves out but doesn't know how to finish the game. here is the thing, we have to be specific on that qatar is doing. this is a safe haven for striss, it's not just isis it's hamas, it's the taliban, it's all sorts of terrorist groups throughout the region. it is straddling the fence, playing both sides of the aisle. i can peck wuk put esh pressure on it, i think mike is right. what is effective and what do we get in the united states. >> carrie you cannot straddle the fence when to comes to isis. can you?

>> everybody, do you know what it's so easy we're across on this side of the atlantic, qatar is in a dangerous neighborhood. they helped dis movie gaddafi, they helped broker peace between hamas and israel. they helped fight against assad whereas our president is a coward and won't go fight against assad. so i trust in some ways what qatar is doing and i agree with steve that we have not been a reliable ally to qatar. >> john, frankly i don't trust qatar that much at all in their dealings in the middle east. i know it's dangerous territory they're just a sort boat ride away from iran. i agree with that. i get it. but the fact is i don't trust people that deal with these terror groups. >> absolutely but even if they are more on our side i keep hearing stuff about reliable ally and wait a second we are talking about the u.s.'s national defense. and i don't think it's asked often enough how does all this activity over there help our national defense? how does it make us more safe?

i think it's at least a debate we've got to have. are we safer because of what we're doing over there? >> steve. >> that's going to be another segment at another time but the fact of the matter is those forces in the middle east are ultimately after the united states, europe and israel if you don't get them now they're going to come after us later. we should have learned that from the '30s. we should have learned it from the 1970s when we're weak we get in if trouble. >> bill. >> you can't be too fussy. are we going to refuse to buy saudi oil because some saudis were part of 9/11? >> hold on a second. emac i think the fact is that you can't be fussy if you have strong leadership at home. when fdr was in power nobody doubted his resolve to fight the nazis once he got into world war 2. we now have a president who doesn't have the same kind of resolve. reagan has the resolve in fighting the soef yeets, fdr did, unfortunately it doesn't seem like we to in fighting isis. >> bill brought up oil. the president should act with all the strength and resolve he

has because of the u.s. oil boom. we don't need middle east oil so we should be advancing our interests in the area just on that respect alone. >> you think dealing with your cable company is frustrationtrustfrustrating now? just wait until washington's new massive internet regulations kick in. some here say get ready for higher prices and this

to "forbes on fox".." >> president obama accused of using strong arm tactics to get the fcc to tart regularity internet providers. will that do for the internet what obamacare has done for healthcare? rich who by the way is joining us with a hawaiian shirt because he had a bad bike accident. what do you think about these new regulations on the internet? >> they're profounding unamerican. if you applied the same logic that the fcc has applied to the internet you would not have box seats at baseball stadiums, you would not have first class

travel in the airline business, you would not have any discriminatory pricing, everybody would be treated the same. this is much worse actually than it appeared. >> so bruce is the consumer going to get the short end of the stick. >>. >> i don't think because i think we're going to regulate the internet like a public good and we're doing that by not having told on the information super highway i think that this will in the long-term be good for consumers. >> if it's so good i wonder why the whole process has been so secretive. the way in it which this has been rolled out, first of all, it's still a secret even though the fcc voted for it and then the way in which the white house has been kind of invading the whole process, the fcc commissioner one of those who voted against it said the following about that whole process. >> i believe that this administration had an undue influence on this item that we just adopted today. i think it's unprecedented in had my 20 years experience and i

think it's problematic going forward for our independent agency and what it means for the internet and the internet experience of consumers. >> steve, the fcc is supposed to be independent but apparently the white house essentially wrote the rules on this. >> why obey the law when it's inconvenient? that's been the mantra of this white house from day one. in terms of what's happened now in regulating the internet this is a solution in search of a problem. data hogs love it because they don't want to pay their fair share. if i want to send something by if he had iks i pay for than if i pop it in the mailbox. that's also an incentive for people to figure out how to make it more efficient so we're going to end up paying more and getting less and government control especially when you have to in effect get government permission to set up a website or things like that whoa this thing is just the beginning. boft control of the internet. bad stuff. >> bill, it's almost like the administration knows how much the public would dislike it that's why they're keeping this stuff secret. in fact, it's interesting to note that even though president obama is part of this whole

secrecy thing back in 2007 when he was still in congress he was a senator he said congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy and the commission has a responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate, but they're not doing it now. >> listen, first of all, this is not going to destroy the internet as we know it, it is going to cost you another $2 a month and the reason for that is the time warner and comcast are going to have to spend a lot of money on lobbyists and lawyers and given all the secrecy it looks like they're going to also have to hire some espionage firms to figure out what the regulation says. >> i think our cable and phone bills are going to go way up. here is what another fcc had said, the internet potential can cannot be realized if it's not designed and managed. do you see any steve joebs working in the federal government? this is totally the department of the internet. we're going to have bureaucrats

hallucinating into reality all sorts of rules and regulations. more rules and regulations doesn't mean efficiency or achievement. >> and that's one of the reasons it is so efficient, the internet because it hasn't had the rules and regulations. mike, you don't have to be a paranoid to worry about the government coming in and regulating content either. even though it's all secret, we don't know the specifics of it yet, tom wheeler wrote the head of the fcc wrote a piece this it wired magazine and he said my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. now, the fcc bureaucrats will decide what is and is not a threat and they're actually going to be able to stop stuff whereas now it goes up even if we don't like it it goes up on the internet. >> david, it is like obamacare except for the internet. this law sucks and -- >> it sure does. general conduct rule do we know anything about what will be viewed proper or improper?

>> no but all you have to do is look at history. in the 1950s it was illegal to buy a handset that wasn't made by at&t. that's what we're going back to. this is just so absurd. >> steve, we should remind folks the rules by which the internet is now going to be regulated were made back in the 1930s to deal with phone companies. this is terribly out of date regulation trying to be applied to something tas moving at the speed of light. >> yeah. horse and buggy rules for the auto age which is why verizon put out a statement in morse code to show how backwards this thing is. all it does is freeze what's in place. it will become politics how you get ahead in that industry instead of pleasing the needs and wants of the public. >> bruce do you really think that government bureaucrats could keep up the pace with what's happening on the internet. >> i don't know about that. here is the deal, i don't know that this came from obama's secrecy. this came from 4 million

internet activists here and i would fall on the side of a netflix or a mozilla before i would fall on the side of a big company like comcast or verizon. >> that's even worse if it was a secret deal that was made between the government and these big corporations. >> the people wanted this. >> the only reason netflix can get its content on the internet is because the cable companies put in the spending on the infrastructure because they knew they could recruit the costs in the future. that's the whole damn point. >> i think with a few exceptions most people are not happy with this. meanwhile the "cashin' in" gang getting ready to roll at the bottom of the hour. eric, wlaf you got. >> state of the denial the secretary of state saying americans are living in a safe period. wow. did he not see the big terror bust in new york this week? is this ignorance on isis about to cost us? plus the president's new warning to ice agents to enforce our immigration laws. "cashin' in" will see you at the

bottom of the hour. >> we will be watching. but up here first no tax on personal income. doesn't that sound nice in more states doing it and history showing all stststststst

more states moving to scrap their tax on personal income. mississippi just passing a bill to do it and this could be why no personal income tax states fair a lot better than states with my income taxes from making more money to more jobs to a better economy. steve, why aren't states, more states, doing this?

>> two reasons one, politicians are short sided they're unwilling to make a sacrifice today even if it means a better economy tomorrow and the second reason is power. when you have high income tack rates and complexity it's more power to the politicians. >> people are moving away from tax high states to tax low states. >> that could be, but in some of these states where they've had no income tax like alaska where oil revenues are down and in texas where you have one in four texans that are uninsured they have problems when the economy gets hurt from oil and things like that. so an thk tax might bring hope nor dee difficult ability to budgeting. >> generally speaking, emac the states that have lower taxes are healthier. >> they are healthier. by the way, in alaska you can't move an oil well, with you you sure can who have your business which is what happened to l.a. l.a. had high taxes and regulations, lost two dozen can companies to low tax areas like texas, that he is why their unemployment rate trimmed the

national average. >> california that has the highest taxes in the nation but does have places like silicon valley doing very well. >> silicon valley and hollywood are two rich to care where the income tax really hits is the muath al kaseasbeh middle class and small business owners and that's why you see them fleeing to washington, nevada and texas. >> so john the high end folks do very well whether silicon valley or hollywood,+hr7 but the middle class and the small businesses are getting really crushed here. >> taxes are just the penalty that politicians fois on work so it's no surprise a low tax state would attract lots of people. are they everything obviously new york and california are rich despite the high taxes but taxes really do matter. >> steve, won't the word get around and the more people do vote with their feet and leave the high tax states for the low tax states the politicians will change, maybe even the folks in washington will change. >> absolutely. 2016 ee leks are going to see a

real move to radical tax simplification like a flat tax. people are fed up they don't like this complexity and power grabbing by politicians. >> bruce, two seconds. would you like it party if illinois had no taxes? >> i would. >> okay. that's all we have time for. >> coming up catch a ride on the market highs with the stocks really rd to smash their own records. se a a a a a [music] narrator: of all the things you've done with your bike, donating it to goodwill may be the most incredible of all. your donations help fund job placement and training for people in your community. which means your stuff can be more powerful than you think. goodwill. donate stuff. create jobs.

we are back with the stocks ready to hit new highs. emac you like these basket of stocks. >> this is quality dividend, it's a nice index play, it has really high quality stocks and it's cheap into bill these stocks give dividend. >> you can get a slightly better yield on a product from vanguard, the reason is vanguard clarjs less. >> you have a company that makes something we're all go gg to need some day, cass kets. >> i think their business could be helped by the anti-vaccine movement. >> that's terrible. go ahead had.

>> i agree. thun of us get out of this life alive, but this one is like watching crab grass grow in a cemetery. >> that's it for us. thank you for watching forbes. keep it right here. the number one business block continues with eric bolling and "cashin' in." >> we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to americans. >> well, it's not just our president, our secretary of state right there sending like he's also in a state of denial about isis and it could cost us. perhaps he missed this three men busted in new york and tl for planning to join the terror group and if that didn't pan out they'd kill americans right here including the president and it's not just the few jihadists in brook inn will. take a listen to the director of the fbi. >> i have homegrown violent extremist investigations in every single state. >> credible terror threats this every state. yet president obama and secretary kerry seem to be down playing the