>> ben stein. >> you're not going to beat the average cost in an average period of time g. with the spiders. >> thank you very much. the cost of freedom continues with dave asmin on fox. more very serious e-mail questions for hillary clinton, and not just the new ones tied to the clinton foundation. wikileaks' julian assange, he's the guy revealing those leaked dnc emails a couple weeks ago, says more are come and that clinton -- suggesting that trump and putin are to blame -- is to distract the public from her own dealings with russia when she was secretary of state. . >> hillary clinton has done well strategically to draw connection between trump and russia because she has so many connections of her own. now, my analysis of trump and that is that there is no substantial connection.

>> our "forbes" gang has been looking into the russian connections to see if he's right or wrong. welcome, everybody, to "forbes on fox." we'll check in with steve forbes, rich carlguard, sabrina schaefer, john tammie, and bruce jackson. who should we be more concerned about? >> hillary clinton. even though donald trump likes putin, donald trump an alpha male. if he feels he's been dissed, he'll turn against putin on a dime. whereas with hillary clinton, as you indicated in your introduction, the russians may have real connections, financial connections to the clinton foundation when she is secretary of state, real outright corruption. that's something he can hold over her for months to come, years to come, if those emails are not revealed before the election. >> bruce, the one thing we know for sure is that russian reset which started in 2000 -- remember when she brought out the target-like button, pounded on it saying here's the russian reset, with the foreign minister

looking on with wonderment, that didn't work out so well, did it? >> setting aside that julian assange has time to talk to the russian media and not the stockholm police about his rape charge one thing. like when you're talking with hillary clinton -- you know, you're saying we know that. what we don't know about trump is what were his business dealings because he won't release his tax returns. >> true. >> the voters can decide whether they think the clintons are doing crony capitalism or whatever. we don't know enough about what trump did because he's not telling us. >> bruce, you make a great point. the problem is, we don't know about donald trump. we do know a lot about hillary clinton, right? >> yeah. i don't think there's any contest here, david. hillary clinton, her relationship with russia is potentially much more dangerous to the united states. what we know about her and her husband is anything that they touch is for sale. anything they have a connection with is for sale. it doesn't matter whether it's a bedroom in the white house or

access to government proprietaries. this is no contest. shirl far more dangerous. >> we'll get into the crony capitalism in a second. we know, sabrina aafter the reset button was pushed -- not right after, but a couple years later, that's when russia went into the ukraine, took over crimea. and on friday, we found out that russia just deployed air defense missiles there, too. >> yeah. this really worries me. this is one part of the election that keeps me up at night. i think if you're concerned about russia and foreign policy, unfortunately there is no one good outcome from the election. i think that hillary clinton said she's going to talk tough to russia. but that sort of went out the window with her e-mail scandal. and on the flip side, we have trump who seems to have surrendered already to russia. and the rnc went along with it. this is very concerning. i don't see really one is better than the other at this point. >> to silicon valley. rich, when she was secretary of state, she had this plan of

working with the russians. this is kind of in the crony capitalism sphere, where she wanted the russians and she as secretary of state to encourage u.s. businesses to go russia and create a little silicon valley outside of moscow. it was called skulvoko. i may have that a little bit wrong. it turned out -- and she got cisco, for example, to put in $1 billion over a ten-year period. this wasn't chump change. turns out the russians used that facility to develop military hardware, and in some cases to steal our secrets. here's what the army foreign military study says. "the skolkovo foundation been involved in defense-related activities since december, 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project, the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine." some of those people were contributing to the clinton foundation. >> yeah. i don't know whether clinton is guilty of being naive or whether she's really devious here. it almost doesn't matter because

look at the result of this. you could give her credit -- give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's only naive in trying to export silicon valley technology so that flowers would blossom in this new russia, et cetera, et cetera. as the military points out, russia did not build new ciscos, they put it into their military technology. >> well, there was another clinton foundation contributor big time, his name is ian telf o telfer. canadian by birth. he had uranium one, sold by the state department and other departments had to approve of the deal. the russians ended up with one-fifth of the united states' uranium reserves, john, again. this seems to be another one of those crony capitalism deals that worked against the american people. >> well, no doubt it was. let's remember that if the state department hadn't approved the sale to russia, telfer could have sold it to someone who was approved who could have then sold it to russia. i don't think you can keep

commodities from getting to where they ultimately are going to end up. what concerns me about this is that both trump and clinton are elevating this fading former -- putin is the subject in a u.s. presidential election, what a waste. >> strange. it is a strange situation. and steve, to john's point, trump does have these connections or people related to trump, paul manafort, his main campaign manager right now for the moment anyway, was working for a puppet in the ukraine for a while as a consultant. there is a trump connection there, too, isn't there? >> there is, but nothing like of a criminal danger with donald trump himself. he may have had deals with russians, oligarchs, unsavory characters. but there's nothing of pay for play because he wasn't in power to deliver pay for play. he wasn't secretary of state. >> that's the point, bruce. you're right, you got to look at trump connections with russia, as well, even though's a declining power. it's still -- there are

connections, but we know about the pay-for-play deals with hillary clinton. >> listen, i'm not wild about it. i'm sort of in john's camp a little like why are people all doing -- is anybody doing business with them given their human rights record and so forth. but hillary would support nato. trump has been wavering on his support of nato. if we don't want to fight, let them fight their battles. we need to support nato. trump is not committed to that. >> he's only said people in nato who we protect have got to pay their fair share. let's get to the bottom line, let's cut to the chase. hillary clinton uses the clinton foundation as a money laundering operation to enhance her power. it's as simple as that. >> well, there's evidence that points -- i don't think that's been nailed down, sabrina, do you? >> no. i'm not sure how clear it is, although there's all sorts of concerning dots that need to be connected. what is clear and one of the things to think about when it comes to russia is for the last

eight years it appears as though we've had no consistent foreign policy. the things that worries me is that we could have eight more years of that with either candidate. i don't think that trump necessarily views sort of our partners around the world as assets to us. and hillary clinton is steeped in corruption. >> steve, i've got ask, there are a lot of points that we've been pointing out here in terms of connecting those points. do you think if hillary clinton is elected president those points will ever be connected? will we ever find out whether there really was pay for play here? >> one way or another, the emails and information are going to come out. it's just a matter of timing. too many people have them. the nsa allegedly has them, the russians allegedly have them, chinese allegedly have them. dissatisfied agents inside the nsa are angry about what has happened. one way or the other, the information is going to come out. it's a matter of when. >> the truth will out, as they used to say. thank you, gang. while trump and clinton want to change our current income tax brackets to help all americans, libertarian presidential nominee

gary johnson says replacing all income taxes with a totally different tax would help the economy each more. would next. please have a seat. i'll be honest. your resume, it's not what i'm used to. i know. ok, so, what would you bring to my company? what do you need? i need a hard worker.

good. i've got two part-time jobs and i help my parents pay the bills. i need problem solving skills. i got through high school without a car, a phone, or a computer. no college degree though. not yet, but life's taught me a lot, and i'm ready for more. well, you're not the typical kind of candidate that i hire, but you are exactly what i'm looking for. [narrator] your company could be missing out on the candidates it needs most. learn how to find, cultivate, and train a great pool of untapped talent at gradsoflife.org.

while the democrat and republican presidential nominees duke it out this weekver their competing income tax plans, libertarian presidential nominee gary johnson calling for scrapping nasdaqs altogether and re-- income taxes altogether and replacing them with a consumption tax. john, you think it's a good idea? >> it's a very good idea. we shouldn't is to prove our income to the irs, plus a consumption tax is the only way that every taxpayer can limit how much is handed over to the federal government. the only negative with johnson's plan is it's too high at 28%, and he wants it to be revenue neutral. why on earth would a libertarian want to maintain the amount of revenue flowing to washington? he should have it low so we're giving less to washington.

>> if the rate bring down from 28%, would you be for it? >> no because it's too easy to manipulate. milton friedman said the problem with a sales tax, is it going to be too successful, be too easy to raise it in increment, and it would be too easy to apply a different rate of sales tax to what the government thinks is good consumption versus what it thinks is bad consumption. >> bruce, one thing we know is that it ain't working out too well for the american public. wage there week, we had a revision of the past figure which showed an increase of 3%. now we see that wages are going down again. we've got to do something. isn't taxes one way we could we'll do it? >> well, i mean, my problem with the sales tax is that it's regressive and tends to hurt poor people. another thing, you know, john talks about it being high. you know, what would you do? in chicago we have a tax, sales tax already of 10%. you add the johnson plan on top of it, that gets you up to 40%.

i'm not sure how that would work, but it would hurt people, it seems. >> see, one thing that gary johnson says is that if you focus on a consumption tax, you really wouldn't hurt people's attempt to create something new because people wouldn't be taxed on income, so they'd go out there and work harder. a supply-size effect, a blossoming with businesses with a gdp -- we've had an average gdp growth of 1.4% during the obama administration. that is pathetic for the united states. >> it is pathetic. i like the fact that gary johnson wants to get rid of the tax code. i think a flat tax is an easier, more immediate way to go. you have to do two things, david. one, get rid of the 16th amendment to the constitution which allows the imposition of the income tax. if you don't get rid of that, i guarantee you'll end up with both, the sales tax and an income tax which most states and most countries have. second things is, it's the real rate when you look at it is probably 33%, 35%. you can have a real enforcement problem. for example, talking about favorites from what gets taxed

and not taxed, the fair tax people say on new houses you wouldn't have to -- use only have to pay the tax on new houses. what's the definition of new and old? you can see this will get complicated quickly. >> the only amendment in the u.s. constitution worse than prohibition was the income tax steve talked about. nevertheless, despite that, he does want to change. here's gary johnson's tax plan. he want to abolish the irs. i think 95% of americans would be good with that. eliminate income corporate tax and corporate taxes, by the way, and establish this consumption tax. what's your idea? >> yeah. i think all of that is great. it lowers the cost of capital which increases investment and will eventually increase jobs. what i don't like about it is the last time this was a big idea in the late '90s, they were talking about a rate of 15% as a consumption tax. incomes haven't really gone up since then. awful of a sudden we've -- all of a sudden we have a rated of over 20%. that's the point, this rate can go up very quickly.

>> sabrina, that's why friedman thought it was so bad, because politicians love it. we've seen it overseas. a similar kind of things. they call the value-added tax. gary johnson says it differs, in fairness to him. but in point of fact, it's so easy for them to raise it over there, it might be here, too. >> yeah. that gary johnson's plan is perfect or without flaws. certainly if you look at something like the cato institute, they've talked about the idea of a consumption tax. there are a lot of things that would have to happen to make it really effective. that said, i don't think it's bad that he's bringing this into the conversation because i think our current system is one that benefits some at the expense of others. a way of setting policy. someone mentioned earlier that the government gets in the position of choosing what's -- what's good and what's not good. and we want to move away from a system that does that. >> i want to ask john about his godfather, milton friedman's suggestion that the reason it's bad for taxes is because it's so easy for government to raise the tax.

what do you think? >> well, not my godfather. the main things is the tax code's already complicated. it already exists that they can raise the income tax rate. so the problems with the consumption tax are the same things we have with the existing tax code. what's important about it is it is one way that we can limit how much we enter the federal government. these other ways we have to give it regardless. >> what do you think, rich? >> i think john is being idealistic about this. i also think the next president's going to be the first one that's going to have to deal with crypto-currency, black chain currency, making a sales tax difficult to implement. >> very interesting point. let's end it there. thank you very much. the "cashin in" gang coming up. the media going ballistic on donald trump over his second amendment comment. why are they focusing more on that than his economic speech this week? plus, we're spending weekend at bernie's this morning. senator sanders shelling out big bucks for a new vacation house. is the socialist becoming a

capitalist or just a hypocrite? >> weekend at bernie's, like it. thank you very much. as kids head to college, a new report showing getting that degree may not just be costing more but taking a lot more time. students and parents that are sitting around for this on know about investing. believe in something, buy shares in it, watch it grow. so...what if you could invest in the future? the future of kids? like a stock. not the kind of stock that's about making money. but a stock for social change. a whole new kind of investment called better futures. when you invest, it helps kids go to college.

i could be one of the first college graduates from my family. the first philanthropist from my neighborhood. and if i'm the first, then maybe there's a second. and a third. believe in us, invest in us. watch us grow. my name is sydni and i'm your dividend.

[ clock titime. ] you only have so much. that's why we want to make sure you won't have to wait on hold. and you won't have to guess when we'll turn up.

because after all we should fit into your life. not the other way around. ♪ everything is cool when you're watching a screen ♪ ♪ everything is awesome, ♪ when you're sharing a meme ♪ ♪ a voice remote, "show me angry kings" ♪ ♪ you know what's awesome? everything! ♪ ♪ apps that please, more selfies, ♪ ♪ endless hours of the best tvs ♪ ♪ brand new apps, shows to go, ♪ ♪ awesome internet that's super whoa... ♪ ♪ everything is awesome xfinity. the future of awesome. college kids getting ready to head back to school with political promises and student loans piling up. a report says more than half of students in public colleges won't even graduate in six

years. rich, this is the first time full-time students, you say, proves college investment isn't worth it anymore. >> there are so many cheaper ways of getting a degree. i went to a junior college. it put cut my four-year expenses in half literally. you can go to a trade school and become a welder who earns almost as much as a lawyer who needs seven years of schooling today. >> and bruce, as a father who is sometime asked to shell out more than $60,000 a year for colleges, i'd go for any alternative. >> yeah. there are more -- i think colleges are slowly getting it and being a little bit more accountable. some are going to two and three-year degrees. >> i haven't seen it, just telling you. as a father of a college kid, i haven't seen. it go ahead. >> no, in texas, as a matter of fact, they have a three-year medical degree. a lot of studies show in the fourth year, medical school students spend a lot of time thinking for residencies. they think it's a waste. things are changing. >> here's the things, sabrina.

we're in a political environment. promises are made. hillary's planned to help out people with colleges, costing $500 billion over ten years. i'm wondering if that's a sound investment given the fact that a lot of kids aren't even graduating from college. >> no, and of course what she's proposing will only make things worse. it's only since government has gotten into the business of subsidizing college that costs have gone sky high and that the diploma has become inflated. one thing we ought to be talking about is stopping the war against for-profit colleges which actually gives kids a lot of those skills and the flexibilitying to to school when they need to. >> steve forbes is a very rich man. he's a scot. and anybody who knows the scottish people know they're cheap. you had five daughters to put through college. how did you do it? what do you think of the new things that came out that people don't graduate? >> it's a national scandal. sabrina is right about the for profits, the aggression rate is

comparing apples on graduation rate is comparing apples to apples for for-profit college. this is subsidizing colleges, giving them the ability to raise prices. giving students sub prime-like mortgages, jump loans that put them under, and they do it in the name of the students, but they're ruining students by the millions. >> the point is the more money we as taxpayers give to people to go college, the higher the tuition rights go to others who actually have to pay the bills. >> david, when the colleges look at that plan by hillary clinton for the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, they salivate because they think they're going to raise rates. i guess the only things i don't like about this segment is, am i the only one that didn't go to class when i was in college that much? you guys got to get -- >> john, we only have 20 seconds, but we should point out one-third of the world's billionaires never graduated from college. so even billionaires don't graduate. >> that's the point.

college has always been vastly overrated as a place to learn any skill. the idea that any trade skill or college can teach bus the future is laughable. always has been. >> last point from john tamny. coming up, a new survey saying more than one in two americans feel gloomy about the economy. we have the pics that will lift your spirits along with your bank account.

we're back with the pics that will brighten your mood and bank account. michael zane, small cap, small companies? >> i think it's time for a profit surge with the little guy. i'm going with vaughn guard capital. >> rich? do you like it? >> i do. small caps are overdue. >> what is harris corps? >> they make military-grade telecommunications systems. with all the hacking going on in the military and utilities and stuff like that, i think --

>> good idea. >> good buy. >> great company but overlooked. >> we haven't overlooked it anymore. you now know about it. that's it for "forbes on fox." have a great weekend. thanks for watching. keep it he number-one business block continues. the mainstream media up in arms over donald trump's comments about the future of the second amendment if hillary clinton picks new supreme court judges. >> gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. [ boos ] although the second amendment people, maybe there is, i don't know. but i'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. >> the coverage of that one statement dwarfing the coverage of his major economic speech this week. is that unfair and unbalanced? hi, welcome to "cashin' in." our crew this week, morgan, jessica, and kristin. welcome, everybody. critics want trump to give specifics. he