dad is the one, when you fall that picks you up. that unconditional sense of presence and um, reassurance, is really what makes him my father. the fight may not be over for those iranian sanctions. one gop presidential candidate says our president is breaking the law. so private companies should not lift one sanction. >> any bank that listens to this president releases billions to an international terrorist like the ayatollah khomeini will face billions of dollars in civil liability and litigation. >> some here agreed. all sanctions in place no matter what. are they right? hi, everyone. i'm brenda buttner. this is "bulls & bears."

here are our bulls and bears this week. gary b. smith, jonas max ferris, john layfield, along ashley pratte and chuck rocha. our public officials failed to do it. you say private companies should keep the sanctions against iran. why? >> absolutely, brenda. because for one reason. i think it's just good business. we're all going to agree, capitalists will go to where the money is unless it's bad by. you know, if you struck a deal with a terrorist or in this case i call him a scorpion, they're always going to revert to what they do best, and that's sting. we saw that in venezuela, as a matter of fact, when exxon tried to do business there all for the sake of cash. and what happens was hugo chavez nationalized exxon's assets there. if a private company is smart, they won't deal business with

iran for that reason. you're dealing with the devil. the best way to deal with a zefl not deal with them at all. cut off their source of funds, which they need the free market for. i think ted cruz is right in this case. >> very interesting, gary, an answer i didn't expect from you. jonas, you say asset seizures are questionable in the first place from a free-market country. and this may not necessarily be the whole way to go. >> this has flip-flopped into the republican -- free-market people are not supposed to be for sanctions. seeing a sovereign country's wealth is not a free-market move. decreeing what banks cannot cannot do business there. in a real free market, the government has no say who a bank does business with. that's a free market. real libertarians like ron paul are not for any of this garbage. in fact, democrats have always been behind some of the bigger sanctions that didn't work in the past. japan before they attacked us because they had no oil. carter put it on the soviets

with the grain embargo. recently obama with syria, how are those sanctions working? that place is a bigger mess than before. they don't work, they ear not a free market. that is why it doesn't work because black markets form and all the stuff you read about in economics classes is what builds when you have this artificial impact on a real free market. have a free market with iran. i know we hate them, but we'll actually have a better outcome than sanctions. >> ashley, sanctions did work for a while, and they were putting pressure on the economy in iran. if the free market decides we're not going there, would that effectively put the iran deal to bed? >> well, look, the problem right now is this iran deal gives iran exactly what they want. it gives them more than $100 billion in sanctions and that's going to extremely improve their economy and breathe new life into it. that's exactly what we don't

want. it makes it a problem. that's why sanctions were there in the first place, and that's why we need to do it as a check on their power. that is a huge, huge problem when we look at them possibly achieving nuclear status here and that is, again, a huge problem for our national security, a huge economic problem, but with sanctions in place they were crippled. that's the need for sanctions in the first place. if we put them there and keep them there and keep them in check, we can actually have checks on iran, which is what we need in order to be more secure. >> this is going to be the decision of individual companies, perhaps of individual banks. do you think they'll make that decision, and should they? >> i don't think they should. i think we have one commander in chief. i think there are state legislators trying to pass laws where these banks don't have to do it. they need to read the constitution. it would be unconstitutional for them not to do this. i think there was a grandparent of people that got together to pass a deal to try to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it didn't end the way they wanted to but you can't take

your football and go home. you have to be a part of the process. >> john, good deal, bad deal, whatever you think, the issue is do you think that the free market can make a play here and actually do something about this deal? >> yes and no. they can to a degree. when cvs decided we don't want to sell cigarettes anymore, that's a private company making a decision. you'll have certain private companies that come along saying we don't want to do business with iran because it is a bad deal. the coker agreement is something ted cruz talked about, was violated by the president. that's true. it says you have to disclose everything. two side deals were not disclosed. even going back to congress, 60 day, the president will veto that. you still have the same deal. the toothpaste is out of the tube at this point. this is a horrible deal. but to tell companies to do the role of government i think is a

gross overstep. it if the free market wants to not do business with iran, that is their business, good business, but should not be decided bay government or by anybody else about what free markets should do as far as iran. >> and gary b., oil companies are chomping at the bit to get in there. tell john why he's wrong. >> well, fortunately, i'm a few thousand miles away from john so i can tell him why he's wrong. look, john has always made some good points. a few weeks ago, brenda, on this show, we talked about companies like facebook and twitter stepping up to block terrorist content. this were they were supposed to do that to help the government. tights right thing to do in my opinion. the oil companies are chomping to get to that cash there and do business with iran. but the right thing to do and good business is not to deal with the devil. businesses make those choices all the time.

that's not government mandate. that's just good business. >> john, that's good business? >> but then we should like what's going on because the sanctions are interfering with companies' ability to make that decision, whether they should or shouldn't do business in iran or wherever. the government is decreeing, you cannot sell things to russia. those are government rules interfering with the free market. how is this not moving toward a free market solution? >> but government always interferes with the free market. all i'm asking is the companies deal best with what they have in place. if there are sanctions in place, they should be able to deal with them, good or bad. >> but you just said the companies can decide to do business or not, we don't need the government telling them they can't. >> yes. we're in violent agreement, if you will. all i'm saying is the companies should voluntarily make that choice, and that would help. >> don't be on carter's side of sanctions. >> i don't think gary b. is

anywhere near carter. jeff. >> i think when we put this deal together there was a group of people trying to do what's best for america out there. when you have american companies -- i'm going back to wra what john said about a role of government to do that, private business should run their own private business if they want to. i don't think it's good for america. >> is that what you're saying, john? >> yeah, it is. i think private interpry, if they want to deal with the democrat, that is their business. i don't think it's good business. i don't want to deal with a company that's dealing with iran. but the government made this decision. look, we have screwed up the middle east almost coming up on the 100th anniversary right now. we continue to screw up the middle east. this is a terrible decision, a unilateral decision, as bad as it could possibly be. say cuba, if you have cuba's embargo has been lifted, you are going to tell delta you can't fly there but foreign

subsidiaries can? it should be up to the free market. if you want to do business with the democrat, go ahead, but you'll suffer the repercussions from people like me and gary b. that don't want that done. >> last word. good debate, guys. cavuto on business in about 20 minutes. kwhaf you got, neil? >> voting in favor of the bad grew gais? why our enemies are looking at congress and the united nations and saying, thanks guys. plus, some of these guys -- time for the entire tax code to take a hike? see you at the bottom of the hour. up here first, one of the next stops on congress' agenda, voting to increase your share of this. but is it time to stop raising

bears." have a great day. >> $18 trillion in debt. and what are lawmakers fighting over now? raying the debt ceiling yet again. john, you say enough with the raising. start with the cutting. >> absolutely. president obama in 2006 talked about raising the debt ceiling under president bush said that we have a debt problem and a failure of leadership. and he went on to say that america deserves better. i agree. america deserves better. from 2000 to now spending has gone on unabated. under president bush it almost doubled. under president obama it's almost going to double again. president obama's budget going forward is $8 trillion increase

in the next decade. we're looking at $26 trillion in the next decade. at some point our future is robbed. we need to put something with this like a balanced budget amendment in a reasonable time frame, say six to ten year, to tie this because that's the only way you can keep these guys from spending money because their only goal is to get re-elected and not help america. >> jonas, congress likes to spend money. politicians like to spend money. they talk about cutting. but they don't want to cut the things that really would take a bite out of the budget, out of the deficit and the debt, entitlements, because that's very politically unpopular. >> and voters like getting stuff. you're certainly not going to get that part of the budget cut before the major election next year. you can't not hit this ceiling. 80% of the budget they'll never touch in the best-case scenario of everybody wh's republican in government. it won't happen. they won't get re-elected. it is time, although i will say this is a strong economy with a low unemployment rate, this is when you want to start running a

balanced budget. in a recession, you run a deficit. i'm not against that. we should also be cutting this debt ceiling which obviously doesn't work, to john's point, look at what happened to the debt over the last 20 years. it increases the debt because we're borrowing money right now at a higher rate than germany and japan partially because we have this infinitesimally small stupid ceiling other countries don't have. get rid of the ceiling. it will help pay down the debt. get rid of it and do a little cutting while the economy is strong. >> gary b., what do you think of that? >> i'm not going to be elected. >> i think we're in big trouble, brenda. look, if we don't stop this increasing debt via the debt ceiling, we're going to be worse off than greece. here's why. most people normally look at debt as a percentage of gdp. and not too bad. i think we ranked like 34th or something. we're like 61% in that regard. say, okay, we're okay. but really we pay off our debt through tax revenues.

there our debt to tax knews is 408%. you know where we rank, brenda? third. japan is first, greece at 475% is second. we're 408%, brenda. that should send a warning signal. we have a higher ratio than portugal, spain, and some of these other countries in misery. if that doesn't put things into perspective that we need to somehow either through a balanced budget, clamping the debt ceiling, somehow, some way, we're going the wind up like greece. and i don't think that's a good place to go. >> you know, i think everybody's -- mine, yours, everybody's share of this is some $50,000. chuck? should we raise the debt ceiling or just cut spending? >> this just in -- people in washington, d.c., are talking about giving stuff away and giving people money because they can be re-elected. absolutely. with this particular debt ceiling and this case, this is our own debt we've already

incurred. we don't want to default on our loans. i sound like gary b. but you have to do something to cut between now and then because you can't go back and not pay a bill you've already made. >> chuck, aren't you always going to make that argument, though, that -- oh, i hear that so many times. we have to raise the debt ceiling because it's already for debts we incurred. >> the politicians are just going to step back and keep on keeping on, but you have to pay the debt now. get politicians with a backbone who will do something. >> like that's going to happen. >> okay. ashley. >> look, we need to cut spending. we need to cut the size of the federal government. and we need to shrink government to the point that, you know, they're bare bones, because right now everyone is living off the fat of the government and that's ridiculous. what we need to do is get our fiscal house in order, make cut where is we can, and we have to start paying our debt back. $18 trillion? that's unfathomable to the point that people in my generation don't even understand how much money that is. why? because we've grown up with debt and that is a serious, serious

problem. the way it has increased and our share of the debt individually, bren dashgs i think you mentioned it's around 50, i think it's around $58,000 per person, sickening to think about that. that's almost like -- it's way more than a mortgage, but it's at the point where it's almost unfathomable to anyone in my generation who will eventually have to pay off this debt. >> good point. "cashin' in" in just over an hour. eric? >> the white house says president obama wants to take in more syrian refugees. could this make us vulnerable to another terror attack? and how much will it cost us? plus, the kim davis case shining a right on religious freedom in the workplace. should everyone be able to work according to their faith? see you at 11:30. up here next, what one state just did that may be paiching the way for a national $15 an hour minimum wage and why someone here is warning careful what you wish

look who's teaming up for a $15 minimum wage. vice president biden in new york praising governor cuomo for giving it to fast food workers. now he's pushing it for all new york workers. others want it to go nationwide, but ashley, you say careful what you wish for. why? >> careful what you wish for because this is going to end up costing a serious amount of jobs. what we have seen in california and seattle are that businesses are closing their doors, hiring less people because they can't afford to do it, or better yet, let put kiosks in place of people because they don't need

health care or mandated sick leave. at point, the fciu and all the unions that are special interests that cuomo is catering to for a political charade, you realize it's going to end up costing jobs in the long run. new york used to be a place where people would go for opportunity and now they'll see a lot of doors closing for business. >> chuck, you agree? is this bad for jobs? >> i think it's good for jobs because if you grow up in east texas like me and you're making there are 12 and you go to $13 and you have $3 more, say you got 50 bucks at the end of the week and you give somebody who needs 50 bucks 50 bucks. the first thing you'll do is buy a few more cases of beer and a few more what a burgers and that's going to help the people selling beer and what a burgers. >> gary b., this is basically the government telling businesses what to pay their workers and not -- they shouldn't be making the business decisions, should they? >> exactly, brenda. i guess if you're where chuck is from, you have a one-stoplight town and the one employer and

all the workers have to work there, it's a fantastic deal. but, you know, as pointed out earlier, we've had 1,100 food jobs lost in seattle, 2,500 jobs host in san francisco. both cities have raised their minimum wage. chuck would argue, well, it helps with income inequality. no, it doesn't. san francisco ranks second in the country in income inequality. does it help the teenagers of the world? no. their labor force participation rate is the fifth lowest it's been in the last 70 years. i'm looking for the upside of this. maybe in chuck's little town there it's great. in every other town it's horrible. stoo i don't know, john. you grew up in one of those towns and so did i. do you agree with gary? >> gary b., you are cruising for a bruising, my friend. me and chuck are both from east texas, and we both love what a burger, by the way. you better be careful. look, this is all political.

why not tie it to a basket of wages and index it to inflation. but democrats and unions don't want to do that because they want to say $12 or $15 three years they want to go to $20. republicans don't want to do that because they want to say they're defending the free market. it becomes a political football back and forth. i think you need some type of federal minimum wage to let cities and states dictate what they can do in their own communities. >> jonas, 20 seconds. >> these burger prices, you can't just pay all the workers $15 an hour and sell a burger for $2.99 in every market. upstate new york is a cheap market. there's definitely going to be unemployment but there will be higher prices. there will be some positives. some people might do crime or go on food stamps because you can make this an artificially high government to create wage. we'll find out how this plays out. >> trying to unionize fast food restaurants. >> we can all agree a what a

burger is worth it at any price, right, guys? thanks to ashley and chuck for joining us. we appreciate it. making money by nuking mars? one of the best known new ceos has a plan to do it.

predictions. gary b. >> brenda, i still think apple has it. stock up 30% in a year.

>> john, proush prediction, please. i've been wrong on go pro but i still own it and believe in it. up 30% in a year. >> jonas. >> we can get ready by warming it up with a nuclear bomb attack. we'll need the secret division of boeing to make that craft. up pearce year on boeing. >> neil? all right. is it just me or was this a good week for the bad guys or what? welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. think about it. we've got an iran nuke deal going through as opponents in congress really can't find a way to stop it. soon we'll have a palestinian flag going up after the u.n. as it. ben stein has had enough of it. we've got charlie gasparino. adam lashinsky is making last-minute changes to his fantasy football team, that or burning an american flag. i don't know which. but he's busy. ben, thera