. we are creating so much data out there, this makes it possible to file on that data. >> quick take? >> love charles payne and i wish you were president of the united states but i don't think he knows more than the market. >> great, that will do it. hillary clinton says she wants to win over everyday americans but even some on the left think she's too much of an elitist to identify with folks on main street. listen to ralph nader. >> ralph, is hillary clinton a crony capitalist? >> sure when she was a senator, she did not challenge any corporate boondoggle and there are dozens of them. the obama administration hasn't done that. her years in new york have just turned her into a dyed in the wool corporatist and mill tarrist. >> from ralph nader. is he right or is he wrong? welcome to "forbes on fox."

our guests. john is back again, yes, back again. austin goals buyol salsgoalsbe, former white house chief economist. rich, you heard ralph nader, has he got a point? >> he has a great point. take these $200,000 speeches. steve forbes and i heard her speak at a corporate event. i must assure you, she's not the worst speaker in the world but she's not a $200,000 speaker. what are people paying for? they're paying for access to a possible future president. pay to play is what hillary clinton and bill clinton have been about their whole careers. >> austin, she did a lot of talking this week. here's basically a nutshell of her. lar word popular words of wisdom. >> there's something wrong when ceos make 300 times more than the typical worker. there's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that i saw on i-ole as i was driving here over the last

few days. >> she was being driven, i should point out. coming from a woman who makes 200,000-plus an hour. doesn't that sound a little hypocriteical hypocritical? >> i agree with what she said. you know, we got riddled in the tax code that makes no sense. there's an irony you're playing ralph nader saying she never opposed any corporatist whatever in the tax code, then you play her saying i want to remove this thing from the tax code. my understanding ralph nader's had a thing out for the clintons for a long time so i'm not surprised -- >> all right well, steve, is it just that, is it just that there's a rivalry between ralph and hillary, or has he got a point here? hold on, that's for steve austin. we love you but that's nor steve. >> it is a form of a cronyism. you see if in her support of the subsidies on the green side the companies who couldn't survive otherwise. you see it on the war on spros part. you see it in the war of epa

against energy. in terms of taking those $200,000 pops, those giving the money, think they're going to get anything in return, forget about it, she'll bank the money and go to the populist left. >> it is the hypocrisy that bothers him. the inability to identify with the candidate. many people say that's what killed mitt romney. in the exit polls, you saw this. people couldn't identify with him. they thought he was just too elitist, too far above their problems. >> at least mitt romney made his money by turning around corporations. i think in hillary's case, she's a first-rate opportunist. she worships money because money is the path to power. the corporations, the top ones, can be a lawn mower corporation she'd hang around with them if it meant it could get her to the white house, it makes no difference what business they're in. >> will this kind of arrogance of privilege come back to haunt her during the campaign? >> well, i certainly think it's going to be a common theme. interestingly, it's coming from both the far left and the right. they're both sort of attacking

her with this populist messaging. i think hillary clinton is someone who does whatever's necessary at the time. she's not a ralph nader. she's not an elizabeth warren. she's not ideologically driven. she will do what is politically viable. sort of talking about income inquality is what she thinks is going to get her ahead in the polls. >> mike, if this charge sticks, that she is crony capitalist elitist, i'm wondering if she'll tack to the left during the campaign, whether she'll endorse policies that will hurt capitalism even more. >> the only thing that's going to matter as far as whether or not she gets elected is whether or not the republicans who, let's not forget george bush was the biggest spender as a president we ever had until president obama. >> that's true. >> all of the presidents, except ronald reagan during my lifetime, if you look at government spending have been crony capitalists. nixon was, ford was. so we need a reagan-like

candidate who can spell out a clear, con size agenda, because this president has given us the worst economic recovery we've had since the 30s. unless we elect somebody like reagan continuing down this path. >> we're fair and balanced here. we go after republicans as well as democrats. go ahead. >> the first thing ronald reagan did when he left office was sign up and give paid speeches in japan. so let's not turn that into something it's not. i think the difference between hillary clinton and mitt romney and the reason why it's not going to be easy for somebody in the republican party to try to turn her into mitt romney is the policy she is supporting are not ones that people are going to say they're just benefiting people that make a lot of money. everyone that runs for president has been unbelievably blessed. if you look at the net worth of our candidates for president over the last century, they're unbelievably --

>> well, as a privilege -- >> she's not supporting tax cuts for relationship people in the way mitt romney -- >> she admits she hasn't driven a car in decades, by the way. living so long in this rarefied environment. you think of scott walker for example. a governor who didn't even graduate from college. he really has sort of midwestern story that fits more than hers does. >> yeah and so mar rowe rubio has the same kind of story. look, what america hates is a phony. and i think that she has -- she companies across as a phony. i think that barack obama comes across as a phony when he bashes corporate jet travel and the taxpayers give him the best jet that's ever been made in the whole world. >> steve, isn't it incumbent upon republicans then to put up a candidate that has a genuine story that americans believe in? >> well, that's right. inner its of hillary clinton, they don't have to say too much. she's her own best critic. so republicans have to up with a

reagan-like agenda pro-growth, show they have something positive to say instead of throwing darts at the other side. >> she does attract a lot of people from wall street. this week, john, one of your former alumni, goldman sachs, just appoint the as ceo for her. >> wall street's where the money is, that's where hillary's going to migrate towards. in a sense we're all screaming at the score board, complaining about hillary. this is a symptom of big government. so long as government is spending $3.5 trillion a year, opportunists like hillary from both sides -- let's face it, neither side wants to cut spending -- will migrate towards politics. >> the whole point going back to nader, i think he does make a point. what's worse is when corporations and government work together hand in glove. so corporations get these special deals. they cut out the middle man. that cuts out a lot of the middle class. >> why does this happen? as john points out, it was sort of music to my ears. this is when government gets into the business of health care

or energy or education or home ownership. once you get government into the business of all of these different industries, there are people who are going to be winners and people who are going to be losers and there are people who are lobbying to be the winners it i don't think it's any surprise we're seeing wall street sort of, you know, want to get on the bandwagon quickly. bau they're going to want to get on the republican bandwagon too because as john says this is a symptom of a bloated state. >> wall street is going to hedge their bets no matter who is running. here we go again. why a new plan to rush first-time homebuyers in as our guys freaking out. will you end up footing the bill?

mom, when is daddy coming home? ♪ he called her on the road ♪ [phone rings] ♪ from a lonely cold hotel room ♪ hello. hi, honey. ♪ just to hear her say ♪ i love you. ♪ "i love you" ♪ ♪ one more time ♪ ♪ ♪ a little voice came on the phone ♪ he's right here. dad, when you gonna come home? ♪ he said, "daddy, when you coming home?" ♪

♪ he said the first thing that came to his mind ♪ i'm already there. ♪ i'm already there ♪ ♪ take a look around ♪ ♪ i'm the sunshine in your hair ♪ ♪ i'm the shadow on the ground ♪ ♪ i'm your imaginary friend ♪ ♪ oh, i'm already there ♪ announcer: a message from the foundation for a better life.

i'll see you at 2:30 eastern. now back to "forbes on fox." are you up for another housing bailout? first-time homebuyers can already buy a house with as little as 3% down. and now government mortgage giant fannie mae is kicking in 3% of the closing costs for first-timers as well. so is this a good plan or are we heading right back to the

government-sponsored housing freebies that help to cause the last financial collapse? steve? >> this is a bad sequel to a bad movie. the government has to give you money for closing costs and the down payment. that means you shouldn't be in there in the first place. and the u.s., for all of these programs that fannie and freddie do ranks 37th in the world in terms of the rate of home ownership. this is a case like most government programs less would be more. let the economy thrive and home ownership would go up. >> austin, is this history repeating itself? >> on this particular thing, i don't think so. i mean the closing costs are too high. they have ridiculous fees. in another context if you propose this, people would be saying, it's a crazy tax increase. so if it's not increasing the debt load of the consumers that could be a good idea. but i agree with steve, that if we just reinvent fannie and freddie in the way they were before then shame on us.

i mean we ran through that movie and it was privatized. >> i think we all agree on that. are we giving away too many freebies? government-sponsored to homebuyers? >> yes, 3% down. once again, these guys are behaving like the boozy bartender at the frat party, giving away free drinks. they're supposed to be in the business of selling bonds. into federal slush funds for housing policy. these guys are so close to wall street, of course they're going to go off the rails. if housing turns negative again with just 3% down, david, you're going to see these borrowers turn quickly upside down in their homes and their loans. >> well rich maybe government shouldn't be in the housing business at all. >> well steve points out, that's correct. the u.s., for all the support we give homebuyers, we don't have that high a rate of home ownership anyway. we should revisit this idea that home ownership is the great end all be all. what it does, it can also

suppress labor mobility which is really needed in this economy. >> good idea or bad idea? >> it's a bad idea. it's not just because i was a history student that i know this. the reality is this is going to come on the backs of american taxpayers. many of whom are trying to pay their own mortgages or maybe buy up a newer bigger house or save for something else in their life and they're going to be sort of subsidizing people who can't otherwise afford a home. this is bad news. it further distorts the housing market. we should say no to it. >> does it distort the housing market or make it better? >> it distorts. it's bad for the reason sabrina said. we'll see a re-enactment of 2009. we'll have a way of taxing middle class homeowners who pay their bills and handing the money to middle class homeowners who don't pay their bills. this is not a just way to run an economy. >> well surprise, you're just numbered again. how do you fight back on this one? >> look, this is not the program

of reducing downpayments. i agree that we don't want to have too much leverage on houses. this is about reduceing closing costs. this is like craziness. that doesn't -- that is not a problem, that is a solution to some problems. >> rich, you know, they're throwing in everything. not only do you get the first down payment of 3% not only do you get 3% off the closing costs, but they're throwing in 75 bucks to take a home ownership course. i mean, it's like throwing in everything here. >> $75 scholarship. if you need a $75 scholarship to learn about home ownership in an era where you can find anything on the web, then i think you're probably not qualified to buy a house. >> steve what do you think? >> the bottom line is, freddie and fannie should be broken up privatizep privatize privatized. if you want to help, get the government out of the way. >> what would happen if the government got out of the way? a lot of people say the mortgage market would collapse without

freddie and frannie. >> one of the reasons home prices are so expensive the government gets involved. it distorts the prices. it very of en takes the most expensive property and makes it available to people who otherwise couldn't purchase it. if we allow there to be a proper marketplace, people would have to live where they could afford to live. >> trillions of dollars of federal health, fannie and freddie help. it's down from 69% in 2004. wow, malinvestment in infrastructure spending and housing what a bad way to go. >> last word. the "cashin' in" gang is getting ready to roll at the bottom of the hour. eric. >> presidential candidate or pop star. the media's treating hillary clinton like she's a member of a boy band. why that might not be music to taxpayer's ears. plus are more and more illegal immigrants getting a better deal on college tuition than americans? see you at 11:30. >> we will see you, eric, thank you very much. up here, first, forget being taxed to death.

democrats are fighting to keep taxing us after death. are they@?

the house voting on thursday to appeal the estate tax, sometimes called the death tax. now, 71% of americans say that tax is unfair. but president obama wants to keep it and says he will veto the house's repeal. john, should we kill the death tax or keep it? >> it's not only unfair, it's anti-economic growth. if you want to redistribute the wealth of the rich, the best way

to do it is to let them hold on to it. their wealth funds new businesses and new economic growth. >> austin, it is popular to get rid of. 71% of americans say get rid of it. >> you fail to mention in that same poll, once told it applies only to 1/20th of a percent of people suddenly the support for the estate tax goes way way up instead of being a small number. so how do you look at the state of the world and the problems facing the country and decide, as the republicans and the house did, that the big -- one of the biggest problems facing the nation is the 19-year-old kids billionaires are having to pay too much tax on the inheritance they receive. >> what about that steve if this is just about the rich then the heck with it? >> the fact of the matter is it ends up hitting the middle class. they don't have the accountants the super rich have to get

around this thing which wastes a huge amount of brainpower. and also it's a waste of capitalists. john pointed out instead of growing the economy. it's just spite out there. 19-year-olds, some shouldn't have money, but if it's mark zuckerberg i wouldn't mind him getting an inheritance. he knows how to use it. >> who should have this money, the government or the private center? >> i'm going to turn that question around by quoting warren buffett. he's fond of saying you should support your kids well enough so that they can do anything with their lives. but not so well that they can do nothing with their lives. the current $10.8 million exemption for a couple could raise some kids. >> people turn questions around it's because they're dodging the question. what do you think, would the private sector do better? >> yes, this is no way -- it's not a paris hilton tax. it hits farmers and their ranchers.

it hits the middle class and the way of lost jobs. it only raises $20 billion a year. guess what we stand on health care fraud, $60 billion. what we spend on maintaining vacant federal buildings, $25 billion. what is the federal government doing wasting our tax dollars? it's immoral what the federal government is doing to the american taxpayer. >> so many times taxes that focus just on the rich, just on the rich, end up going to the middle class, don't they? >> absolutely. but this is a morally bank rupt tax. people pay taxes their whole lives. they try to say up you know, some sort of amount of money to leave to their children and then you punish their success by giving them an extra tax. people like warren buffett are morally bankrupt when it comes to taxes. he takes his in capital gains. so leave him out of the equation. >> a lot of people who are in favor like warren buffett or for example, i don't want to just beat up on hillary clinton, but she's in favor of the

inheritance tax. her family has all these trusts and ways to avoid the inheritance tax. it's the middle class who usually gets stuck with the bills. >> that's completely wrong. you have to pass more than $10 million on to someone to even qualify for the first cent of this tax. >> why do a lot of businesses for example, who get stuck with this tax -- inherit businesses worth that much -- >> i don't care, it is wrong -- >> if you put -- >> hold on one at a time. quickly. >> okay, my simple question, a 19-year-old kid of a billionaire who has never worked a day in their life receives $1 billion. why should they not pay taxes on that? >> okay -- >> listen, it is -- >> all right, go ahead. >> it is moral. it hits multifamily developed

businesses and farmers. that's who gets hit the most. not the paris hiltons of the world as we like to say. >> nearly 9 out of 10 americans stress out about their finances. we have the stocks to ease that pressure. that's coming up next. you drop 40 grand on a new set of wheels, then... wham! a minivan t-bones you. guess what: your insurance company will only give you 37-thousand to replace it. "depreciation" they claim. "how can my car depreciate before it's first oil change?" you ask. maybe the better question is why do you have that insurance company? with liberty mutual new car replacement, we'll replace the full value of your car. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.

(franklin d. roosevelt) the inherent right to work is one of the elemental privileges of a free people. endowed, as our nation is, with abundant physical resources... ...and inspired as it should be with the high purpose to make those resources and opportunities available for the enjoyment of all...

...we approach this problem of reemployment with the real hope of finding a better answer than we have now.

we're back with stress-free tips. it will likely beat earnings estimates. i like the hedge there. it has a really sweet retail operation. >> good-long term. but you'll be waiting for oil to

find its bottom. >> you like pfizer, why? >> i think it sold a lot of xanax last week when taxes were due. >> that's it for "forbes on fox." thank you for watching. have a wonderful number one business continues with eric bolling and "cashin' in." you can see the media running behind me here. to chase the scooby van. >> guy in the orange pants is pretty quick. alex, i mean, i'm looking at these people. wow. >> see the way these reporters are running after hillary clinton? is your money about to weigh in? looky, looky whose there. that's not juan williams with lipstick, it's our good friend michelle fields. this week, we saw the media treat hillary clinton more than a rock star than a presidential candidate. that should have taxpayers worrying, right? >> 60%