sflo it's an index >> it turns out there may abe good reason why those secret side deals in the iran yan nuclear deal were secret. a new report claims iran. >> are they right? hi, everybody. thanks for joining us. i'm david. this is forbes on fox. let's go in focus with steve forbes himself. mike, swron, along with carrie sheffield and bruce jackson. steve, isn't this a deal breaker? >> it should be a deal braker if it wasn't for a misplaced party loyalty it would be.

this is like having animal house do their own sobriety test. north korea. what happens if you don't have 24-7 access to those facilities. bruce, we should mention this comes from an associated press report. they claim to have seen a draft copy of the deal, which says the following. one, iran will provide to the iaea. photos of -- iran will provide .

>> also, the site involved here has been dormant for a decade, and i know that -- >> satellite piblgs that show this as an active site. this is more of a test-out. a lot of explosive devices. the iaea tried to go into the site and were denied permission to go to specific areas. the iranians are going to inspect that. >> did you eat that last cookie? trusting a 3-year-old to answer correctly. it's impossible to take them seriously.

we have slightly no reason to trust them. >> well, mike, to bruce's point, the white house is denying all this. it's a boilerplate denial. i'll put it up on the convenient. there is no self-inspection of iranian facilities and the iaea has in no way given responsibility for nuclear inspections to iran. notice, they say nuclear inspectings, not inspections of military bases. not now, and certainly not in the future. do you believe them? >> no, because i watched a lot of carrie's testimony on c-span. the bottom line of this treaty, david, is president obama is outsourcing the safety of the united states to all the terrorists in the united nations, to iran, and to russia, and to china. that's the bottom line. if you look at his overall strategy for defense of this country, it fits right in to his overall strategy.

former four star jack keen who was on fox business. here's what he had to say about all this. >> how could you possibly vote on the deal when the heart of it has to be verification, and we don't know what verification means by the organization that's actually doing the inspecting. makes no sense. >> again, we deserve to know, don't we, john? >> you know, my long-standing view is why would we negotiate with irrelevant nations like iran? it diminishes us, and then it needlessly elevates what we all seem to agree is a corrupt regime. why would we expect them to do

you trust iran to honor nuclear agreements? no. 75% say no. if you were in congress, how would you vote on the iran wran nuclear deal? 58% would reject it. >> yes. that's the sad thing, david. it only takes one-third of congress to get this thing through instead of the two-thirds. >> explain why that is. >> they have an up and down vote. the president then veto that is vote. you need two-thirds to override that veto. this should have been treated like a treaty and to have two-thirds or at least an up and down approval of both houses of congress and no presidential veto, and the democrats who are supporting this thing allowing this thing to go through, it's not just misplaced party loyalty. it's playing with the safety of the united states and western civilization. >> bruce, i'll agree with you on one point, which is that there are a lot of questions about what the truth is in this matter, but isn't that a perfect reason as to why we need all this to be exposed? we the public need to know what

we're getting into, don't we? >> well, to receive's point, i mean, they are going to take this up in congress. the president just this week issued a letter to potentially waivering democrats on this to say that there's nothing preventing us from gradually bringing back sanctions. i know we've talked a lot about sanctions on this show. you're kicking and screaming to these sanctions. now that they're essentially -- they've been telegraphed they're gone. the europeans are not going to go back to the sanctions, right? >> no, of course not. this is a birthday gift with a big fat bow. this is a stimulus package. this is a gift. they are going to be able to enrich themselves with oil revenues. this is -- we are, as you said -- we are risking western civil sfwlags with, it and the europeans don't seem to worry that they're going to be self-imploding. >> again, i get back to -- i don't think i heard an answer

for bruce. maybe bruce i'll give you another chance on this. why don't we have the right to take a look at these ideals to decide for ourselves as citizens what we're getting into? >> because, david, the obama administration is never going to do that because the way it's been selling this has been a big lie. it's just like the way it sold obama care. remember, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. now they're trying to scare the american people by saying, you know what, the only other option to this is war. well, you know, it's funny. up until this point when they started coming out with this agreement, they never talked about the way iran is being eminent. now they're using that to scare the american people to get support. >> i'm going to go back to you because i didn't get an answer. as a journalist, as somebody who is interested in exposing all the truth that we can, that's our job. aren't you interested? wouldn't it solve a lot of these issues if they just revealed all the secret deals? >> i think you definitely have a point. we have a congress here, and we have rules that have been set up, and steve just talked about them where the congress is going

to examine the dole and they'll get an up or down vote on it. you may not like the odds, but it's going to happen. >> we have an administration that has broken all the rules. now they care about the rules when they want to keep it secret. >> well, so, yeah, if we think so little of the administration, why do we want them meddling in the middle east to begin with? we're talking about sanctions and risking western civilization. when are we going to learn that if we had ignored the castros deck az ago, they would have been pushed out long ago. we elevated them. we do this in north korea, and now we're going to elevate a corrupt regime like what's running iran. get out of this. >> isn't it clear that the one thing that could put a lot of this controversy at risk is if they open the books and show the people? not just americans, but the people of the world what they've signed on to. >> that's why they don't want to show it because they know we would throw up if we saw it.

>> do you think a family making nearly half a million books should be living in public housing? why the government shouldn't be in the housing business to begin with.

there to protect fans. i'm uma. back to "forbes on fox." we'll take a look at this. your tax dollars hard at work. a new inspectors general report saying families making half a million bucks a year living in public housing in new york city. s they're not alone. more than 25,000 families, all over the country earning more than the maximum income, are doing the same thing. steve, shouldn't folks lose their keys to subsidyized housing in this situation? >> they should be evicted. they violated the rules wrrn the reason why they're not being thrown out is because government

bureaucracies love to expand even if the rules are violated. as long as they have more customers, they feel they have more power. the only exception in terms of public housing, david, is if you get to the white house. >> well, bruce, shouldn't these people be evicted? >> well, wron if they should be evicted. that sounds harsh if you are dealing with people with families and children. perhaps there should be some new regulation or something that -- i think a lot of these are administered by the states. it's very confusing across the country. >> mike, evicted or not? >> david, you have to. when you start getting rid of rich people being in subsidyized homes, you'll increase the supply of homes to the medal

class, and that's really important. >> carrie, i know rents have gone -- with a half a million bucks, don't you think you could find a place to rent somewhere within your budget? >> i really don't think it's that complicated, bruce. we're part of $4.5 million of your -- >> if you don't -- >> more homeless? >> i think $300,000 to $400,000 year, you can afford something. rent control and the like to distort the market, and then the government comes in and says we have to do something. >> john, i don't think you think the government should be in any way, shape, or form in housing, right? >> no. not at all. let's remember what capitalism is all about? it's the process whereby capitalists take what is a luxury item and make it abundant

for all. we've seen it with the car, with the cell phone, with the computer. why is it that housing is different? why is it the one market good that we can't let the markets control and we have to let government get in the way and actually provide -- what a mean thing to do to poor people. >> the fact is even ronald reagan, as much of a free market guy, believed there should be some safety net. this just shows how much farther beyond a safety net we have gone. >> no. i mean, i don't want -- you don't want people who are half millionaires or millionaires living in public house, but i think, you know, to your point, even, you know, jack kemp, who was once the republican vice presidential nominee said that there was a place for public housing in this country to reduce poverty. we don't want people -- nobody wants to be in public housing forever. >> the idea that this government has grown so large -- i mean, just look at medicare, for example. all the rich doctors that are playing medicare. i know doctors are under a lot of pressure right now with obama care, but even rich doctors can

get rich by playing the system now because the government is so big. it can't track everything. the housing subsidies -- >> carrie, it's the social engineering of this thing. one reason -- now they that i they may affect these people, but at first they said they wouldn't because they like the mix of rich people and poor people. whenever you get government meddling in the social engineering plan, you got trouble, right? >> well, especially when they're picking rich people and giving them favorites. i would think a different association between the public housing themselves versus a voucher. we have some people who have fallen on hard times. why not expand the private sector market of housing and maybe give them a voucher for families who are actually on hard times. >> okay. not a bad idea. let's lead with that. let's lead with a good idea.

crutch next, some amazon workers are complaining that they're being pushed to the brink with demands to do

>> please bore someone else with your questions. >> you run errands. >> hello? >> where are my eggs? >> lingerie. >> a million girls would kill for this job.

>> kill for that job. some amazon workers say they're being worked to death as well, and it's no laughing matter. in a new report they clallam zon creates a fiercely competitive environment with long hours and lots of after hour e-mails and texts. that came out in the "new york times". john, amazon says the report isn't true, but you say good for them if it is. explain. >> good for them. they're a story of brilliant entrepreneurial genius. the stock is over $500. people are not put at gunpoint and forced to work there. in fact, they line up to work there. leave it to the "new york times" to find a few disgruntled employees to try to desmirch a great company. >> isn't that just the wonder of america that people like the europeans and apparently the "new york times" doesn't get that sometimes you just got to work your fingers to the bone for a few years to get ahead. >> well, part of me looked at the story, and i thought before i joined up with the people at forbes i worked for a lot of newspapers, and the editors weren't exactly nice when they

woke you in the middle of the night and said go cover the fires i was surprised a tech company didn't have the work-life balance things that these companies like google and facebook are known for. i was a little surprised at home some of the treatment went for the employees. their major job is to get every ounce out of me that can i could produce, right? >> what i like about this company particularly, david, is that the executives are backing up what they're telling the employees. they are major owners of the stock. the officers and directors of almost 20% of the stock, and they're putting their money where their mouth is. sometimes you have to do things that you really don't enjoy.

at least for a portion of your life maybe when you are in your 20s, like you, when you are young and energetic and full of vigor, you can focus just on one thing, your career. >> look, people have been lining up to work there. i had lots of friends who work there, and they love it. the tech industry is cut throat, and amazon, frankly, they would be handing out pink slips. the company would go bankrupt. someone would take their spot. they would be -- people would be angry for handing out the purnk slips. people want to have it both ways. the tech industry is dying for high-tech visas. they're doing for people overseas because we don't have enough talent. this is an employee's market. people can go wherever they like. >> you have amazon. it's like you have apple on your resume or amazon. you could pretty much write your own ticket. >> in a free market economy, one size does not fit all. you have all different kinds of

cultures. you go to top notch law firm or investment bank, you are expected to work 80, 90, 100 hours a week to show that you can do the job and contribute value added. if you are not doing that, boy, there's trouble. >> they're always complaining about how there's not enough jobs. i would like to figure out a way to clone jeff basos. he is brilliant. if we could have 100 of him think how much happier the american people would be. we need more of these people, not less. >> at least in the short-term. maybe in the long-term now. at least in the short-term. of course, forbes, not at all like that. thank you very much, gang. appreciate it. coming up, the stocks to own when the market looks like this.

>> because you can never have too much steve forbes, he will be on fbn on monday. you don't want to miss it. for the safe stocks in a rocky market. you have a collection of stocks. >> the reason why i like this schwab, brought market index fund is because it's very cheap. it only costs you if you invest $10,000 over ten years. >> okay. >> $50. >> john, you like it? sdmri like it in a troubled market, individual stock pickers are get burned. >> what do you like, john? >> i like the nasdaq 100. the dollar strong. that's driving down the oil price. that's always great for tech.

>> the market was hit hard. john, what do you think will happen next week? >> i'm still optimistic.ep it h. the number one business block continues with cashin in. >> donald trump and bernie sanders. crowds coming out for both, and the crowds are getting bigger. now we have the big debate. which party has the right message for america? hi, everybody. i'm liz mcdonald in for eric, and i get to play with the cashin in gang. our crew this week lane rogers, jonathan, michelle fields, and jessica. welcome. good morning, everybody. we've got the donald who is touting himself as a pro capitalist who likes smaller government. on the flip side, bernie sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist. he is pushing things like free health care,