nge inheritance". and remember you can't take it with you. orrow. the rush is on. the administration said to be racing to release more gitmo detainees before congress votes on blocking the moves. presidential candidate marco rubio says we should be rushing to get more bad guys in gitmo, not rush them out. this is "bulls and bears" gary b. smith, jonas, john layfield and hadley keith and chuck rocha, welcome, everybody. gary b. siding with rubio or the white house? >> i have to side with senator rubio on this. i hate to boil it down to math but this is basic math because

the white house makes the math arguments, so let's look at the other side. they're saying gitmo is too expensive, we need to close it down release the prisoners. give them a cost $400 million to run, a large amount of money. 9/11 cost total $2 trillion. my god, you could keep gitmo open what is that for 50 years and still not make up for one 9/11. these are the deadliest criminals that we know of brenda. we need to keep them safe. there is no cost however astronomical we think that would not be worth it. >> chuck, the white house is reportedly racing to release gitmo detainees, and others say that's crazy, and such a risk to america. what say you? >> well what i say is under george bush there was 500 people down there that he let loose and 100 of which returned to kill our soldiers. what was rubio's outrage then? >> chuck, i don't want to talk

politics. there are many people to blame. i'm just talking about right now, what do we do? the white house wants them out, and others congress wants to ban that. what do you think is right? >> let me pull gary b. on you and give you some numbers. there's 100 left. we are big boys here. most of these people were pulled out of a cave and you can put them in maximum security prison in the u.s. lock them up forever and close gitmo and accomplish both things. we can walk and chew gum at the same time >> that's not on the table. john we have to deal with there's lots of options many of you could come up with and john i probably would vote for you for president, but we can only talk about what's on the table. the white house wants them out to another country where they could go and get together with more terrorists and congress says no. >> well congress is right. look we're not talking about transporting the detainees putting them in a supermax prison in florence colorado.

that's a separate issue. president obama wants to close the prison and release all these detainees, this say legacy issue for the president and if you want to know how dangerous this is gary b. brought up how much 9/11 cost us. think about this camp bucca in southern iraq released those are the leaders of ice ice rightsis right now. think about those guys being turned back and put back into the system of terror? that's what's going to happen. transferring the guys is not on table. what is on the table, releasing them or keeping them where they are. let them rot in jail. >> jonas, what do you think? >> the rot in jail scenario is a privilege that u.s. citizens deserve. if you are such a threat to the world that you need permanent incarceration for life then you need to get in the line of the people in that prison that need to be killed so they really can't get out and do damage. the other people who aren't such a threat need to get out of

there, but to stay there forever doesn't make any sense. that's what we do in the united states with people that do terrible things. we're not going to pay for the people to be in prison for 20 30 40 50 60 years at great cost. even if we were it's risky. maybe rubio is the next president but this isn't russia. we're not going to have the leader for 20 years. you got to kill people that are foreign combatants that are a threat and the ones that aren't you try to get information out of them and release them. those are the two choices with the people. >> hadley what do you think? >> we can't release these detainees right now. you look at the situation of the world, you consider what's going on in the middle east what is going on with isis. now is the wrong time to consider especially rushing to release detainees who have been at guantanamo bay for some time. that said i hope our leaders will address what's going on at guantanamo bay because it's not a sustainable situation and could be very well. >> chuck, go ahead, talk. i'm sorry i interrupted you last

time. >> that's fine. whether we like it or not it's become a political football. by no means am i ever going to say yes we should turn terrorists loose so they can kill more of our people absolutely not. there are things on the table never going to get past the president. with he should make sure america is safe and protected, whatever bev to do but quit playing political football with whoever in the white house saying we can do this or that. >> right now, gary b. these are the options. you let those terrorists out where they can go to rejoin other terrorist groups we've seen that before with people who have been released from gitmo, or keep gitmo open. that's it. we can talk about politics all day long but this is serious. it's about lives. >> you're right, brenda. look jonas pointed out a lot of what if scenarios down the road. anything can happen. i will grant him that point but we don't have the luxury of looking into the future and deciding what's best now. so to me it is cut and dry.

i can't figure out, quite honestly whether it's numbers or whether it's ethics or whether it's moral or whether it's danger to society, why president obama wants to release these people and i come back to he's making it political, and his job is as commander in chief is just the opposite. it's so look out for our welfare. to me this is a slam dunk >> chuck, to answer that why do you think the president is trying to race to release these? >> i don't know exactly why. obviously i'm not a foreign relations expert but there has to be i would like to think and my common sense these are the last 100 and i think gitmo is a slap in the face of who we stand for as americans. i think we should shut down gitmo, like it or not. >> that means, jonas, sending terrorists out, who knows where they're going to go by the way. they cannot' go to yemen because look at the hot mess that is. >> and who knows if a drone will

hit one of them. i don't understand why it's better to put someone in prison for life than kill them if they're so dangerous. this isn't america where they fight in court for billions of dollars. they're not really citizens. we can just decide they're a threat to america on the battlefield and kill them. i don't get the permanent incarceration. as far as political, why is this in cuba? it's not the middle east. the whole thing is political so we can appeal to voters in florida. it doesn't make any sense anyway even if we wanted to permanently incarcerate foreign combatants which is absurd from a taxpayer point of view it doesn't make sense to have it in cuba. put it in the middle east where they are, it's ridiculous sending them back and forth to cuba. >> jonas is taking a hard line kill them. you say let them rot in jail. >> whatever gets them all off the battlefield permanently. look joe mass has a point. we're not talking about closing guantanamo bay. i am for putting them in a

supermax prison or something cheaper. that is not on the table. when you talk about prisons that are in the world there's been 48 different documented prisons used by the united states, 48 different countries that allowed us to house these terrorists. you think this is the only one in guantanamo bay? it's the only one we know about. is it better with he put them in some black site prison in poland or the middle east or kill them with drones without a due process whatsoever? look guantanamo bay is not a recruiting tool but if the option is to let the guys go back to the battlefield or rot in jail let them rot in jail until they die. >> that's got to be the last word. >> thanks guys. "cavuto on business" 20 minutes from now. what have you got? >> shouldn't iran prove question trust them before we sign $50 billion over to them? and if paying for your own kids' college tuition isn't enough of a headache get ready to pay for illegals, too.

we'll see you soon. >> thanks neal can't wait. up here first, did hillary clinton just say she wants to topple the rich? kelly wright.

logon to foxnews.com for more. did hillary clinton just wage war on job creators? the "new york times" reporting the presidential candidate says toppling the wealthiest 1% would be good for the economy, but hadley you say toppling them

would be bad for the economy and jobs just the opposite. >> this is class warfare rhetoric 101 and based on a bad economic day the economy is a zero sum game. it's not. the top 1% has nothing to do with people who are in low and middle income jobs. we want more opportunities for those people but has nothing to do with toppling the so-called 1%. >> chuck? >> back in east texas, my papa used to say pigs get hot and hogs get slaughtered so what that means is if you get eaten and keep eaten, something happens is the american people are tired of it. if you have a small business like me and have three employees my cumulative tax rate is 48%. if you have a big corporation you're getting government subsidies sent back to you, taking my tax dollars and giving it to a corporation and american people after a recovery haven't found any effect on their wages and there's anxiety and hillary is taking advantage of it. >> john she's putting a big

bull's eye on basically the job creators of this nation. what's that going to do? >> i think it's going to hurt if she actually goes through with this. i don't think she will. i think chuck is right, she's taking advantage of this. yond i don't understand ms. clinton. her husband is a great politician politician she made so many mistakes in 2008 her tloex lose and her election to lose now. i think she is pandering to the far left just like the republicans will pander to the far right and then move back to the center. ms. clinton has benefited greatly from large corporations. her actions are, completely betray the fact she doesn't believe this. >> that's just politics. gary b. what she's saying is populist and may be popular but if she were actually to take action against the top 1%, what

would that do to our economy? >> it would kill it brenda. i'll come back to that in a second. she's being hypocritical. people like hillary clinton go through life they've overachieved and benefited from that. i'm willing to bet when she was at wellesley, we're going to knock your a to a b and give the slub who got a c a b so we're all equal. we say i'll make your speaking fee $5,000 because that's what john layfield gets not that he gets that probably a lot more. to your other point, what if we made john rockefeller's income equal to everyone else? he would have no insensitive to start standard oil or andrew carnegie google why am i busting my tail to make billions of dollars if i'm just going to make as much as the median?

it doesn't make any sense, brenda. >> jonas, does it? >> look at the countries that have toppled the rich. it didn't work out for cuba or the soviet union. look the rich are like your golden goose. you want to take some of the golden eggs to run the country but you don't kill the golden goose. that doesn't make how does that make everybody richer? you want to milk the goat and you don't want to take it to the level where they don't work or there's no incentive to succeed to start a business. it's a balance we do well in america compared to europe and other countries that are a little more in kill the golden goose mode with the wealth taxes. you need their money to run your country. you can't remove the ruling class. >> this is politics too. >> jonas, chuck, i have to say jonas is using some of your colorful metaphors. >> very good. numbers don't lie, and to give you a little insight into politics hillary is not trying to get the primary from her left. i know on this show it's black

and white and what the numbers say the numbers say. in a political realm she's scared to death getting primaried from the left. >> last word to hadley. >> the troubling thing is hillary clinton is talking about toppling the rich from the perspective of the government toppling the rich. when you have a free market economy you have a lot of turnover in social mobility for people to move among different socioeconomic classes. we don't need the government to get involved with toppling or pun fishing people who have been successful. >> good point, thanks guys. cashing in just over an hour from now, eric what have you got coming up? >> the president is pushing his green agenda he might want to look at what americans are doing with the green cars might save taxpayers money plus the health care may become a prescription for food stamps. obamacare cashing in see you at 11:30. >> thanks we'll be watching. so long mailman, hello drone?.ú.úññññññoññ just because i'm

away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway. i feel like i've been here before. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business.

from snail mail to drone delivery? the postal service said to be considering adding drones to its fleet, but chuck says look out. why, chuck? >> i don't know if anybody was watching the news we had a manned postal worker drone land on the steps of the capitol. this say bad idea overall and the first time that it gets delivered to the wrong house it will be up in the air. also we don't have to modernize everything.

the postal service doesn't use any government funding and one of the largest employers of returning veterans jobs they can do they're a part of society. i think sure modernize certain things but the postal service we don't use for tax dollars, it's funded by stamps. put veterans back to work and lay off the postal service with the drones. >> john the price of stamps keep going up and the postal service isn't making money but in any case can you stop technology? >> no you can't. i'm willing to bet a book of the stamps that chuck doesn't have a besties. >> my ma and cysters ain't besties. >> you talk about the dangerous flying contraptions 1914 or 2015. this is a sign of progress and the post office has always been at the head they employ a lot of people. we asked them to keep about 100,000 people they don't need. when they try to run like a

business we don't let them. this is technology it's coming. wear a helmet. tell aunt bessie to wear a helmet. >> that's right. jonas, drone as postman, do you like it? >> it's so bad. i can't think of an organization less equipped to control a drone fleet than the post office. first, there's so much wrong with this. first of all just from an environmental point of view 98% of the stuff they deliver is junk mail you don't want cruising around your neighborhood in these not energy-efficient 1960s trucks. this would only mean you're going to have more noise in the sky, more junk mail because they'll use technology to lower the cost of delivery and rub out the middleman to chuck rocha's point. it's ruining the skies, annoying you and delivering more junk mail. if not flat out banned there should be a zero noise rule because that is not making the world a better place.

>> i thought joe mass was a gadget guru. i completely changed. gary b. what do you think of this? >> we've just heard from all the luddites from the panel. don't listen to chuck. chuck made a friendster post with his comment, so he's a little old school if you will. john has it right. the ship has sailed. you can't pick up a newspaper or whatever and not read about drones. i agree with jonas, putting the post office in charge of drones i'm part of the government here to help but who else in this case? let them go forward and try to get back to break even of which they're not so self-funding. >> i got to let -- >> electric cars that's a legitimate technology for the post office but drones is not. i guarantee you it's a bad way to go. >> i think we got your point of view. hadley what do you think? >> this is a good idea such a good idea that someone in the

private sector has already had this idea amazon prime is going to plan to deliver your package in 30 minutes by a drone one day. i think it's aspirational creative and i think there's a lot of issues to work out like air space and privacy and cost effectiveness but this is the future and better left to the private sector they'll do a better job and maybe i will be able to order something one day and get it in my hands in 30 minutes. >> john last word ten seconds? >> those flying contraptions they're coming, dad-gum-it, jonas jonas, get your helmet. >> you just wait for your dystopian future. >> don't forget aunt bessie. >> thanks to all for joining us. all right they're calling it an ikea meltdown couples fighting over furniture shopping but there is a way to do it that will save your marriag

predictions, john you're up. >> forget unbundling and mega merger. verizon up to20% in a year. >> gary b.? >> he has the right space the wrong company because my prediction brenda is comcast. that's the one you want to buy, that's up 30% in a year. >> jonas, bull or bear? >> your netflix recommendations will wipe them out. >> predictions, jonas? >> couples are finding the ikea showrooms because it's your

hall can't decide what to buy. rent-a-center. >> if you're fighting over furniture, get a new spouse. you can rent that as well. a bonus for a bad guy before he proves he's a good guy. welcome. while iran is playing chick within warships and calling for us to die, the state department refusing to call up a $50 billion signing bonus. big mistake? what do you think? >> a signing bonus? $50 billion? i mean come on guys, this is absolutely nuts. but listen just underscores the fact president obama wants to get this done by hook or by crook. iran knows it. they haven't stopped any of the stuff we're doing in the middle east