hike. >> health care select. people are going to keep getting older no matter what the fed does, they'll need medical care. >> do you think the fed will hike? >> gosh, yes, eventually. >> noteeeeeeeeeeeee the electio. i'm saying they don't do anything. >> "cost of freedom" now. >> president obama mocking the media, scolding them for going too soft on the republican presidential nominee. >> i sure do get frustrated with the way this campaign is coming. donald trump says stuff every day that used to be considered as disqualifying for being president. the press just gives up and they just say, well, yeah, you know, okay. >> on the other hand, trump supporters say just look at the latest headlines and you'll see it's hillary clinton who gets a free pass from the press. who is right and who is wrong? i'm david asman, welcome. let's go into focus with steve

forbes, sabrina shaffer, bruce jackson. steve, is the president right or wrong on this? >> it's exactly the opposite, david, and he's the prime example of it. the lame stream media hardly referred to it earlier, colin powell two weeks ago in public said hillary clinton was a liar, diplomatically, hardly covered by the lame stream media. her health issue out there for months but only until she collapsed after leaving the 9/11 remembrance ceremonies earlier did it final become a mainstream media issue. they go easy on the democrats, hard on the republicans, it's been that way for decades. >> bruce, look at the headlines, "usa today," bogus trumpanomics, politico, donald trump's shortest attribute isn't his

fingers. we could see a lot about these headlines. >> let's take this week, the president when he spoke in philadelphia with his reagan-esque like approval ratings. the liberal "new york times" had five stories on hillary clinton's health issue, and she's examined by an internist as opposed to a person who prescribes heartburn medication. i mean, this goes both ways. i think the president wants more serious -- now that we know that he was born here, i think he's due some serious coverage of this campaign. >> the fact is that those "new york times" headlines were factual. she did who would information about her pneumonia for 48 hours, where is the headlines on trump were kind of editorializing. >> the one about the fast

fingers, certainly that one. the ones quoting colin powell saying trump is a national disgrace. president obama who is again manipulating, or trying to, the beltway media, when he's the worst in attacking the media, not fulfilling foia freedom of information act requests, or just basically threatening to prosecute reporters as well. >> sabrina, what do you think? is the president right in saying that trump is getting a free ride? >> it's a little bit of a mixed bag from where i'm sitting, david. it always makes me laugh when someone on the left screams about media bias, cry me a river, this is hardly a huge problem for them. i do think the media went a little easy on trump, they've been tougher since the campaign started in earnest. it's been good fodder on both

sides. >> to suggest that trump is -- i just showed the headlines, we had a lot more than just those three, to suggest he's getting a free ride seems instantaneoane . >> president obama's remarks are absurd. the media have been very vicious with trump, i would argue with good reason a lot of the time. i just wish they would be equal on both sides. we had a redistributionist surge from clinton and sanders during the primaries, where is the coverage? >> gallup put out a poll showing 68% of the public doesn't think the press is giving the real story, so maybe it doesn't matter what the press says. >> i don't think it does, david. years ago it would have, we wouldn't have seen hillary clinton on videos sort of wobbling around and all her coughing fits and apparent seizures, we wouldn't have known about it.

we do now because it goes viral soon after it does. in this day and age, because of people's mistrust of media, people get a lot of their stuff from online sources that they do trust. >> and steve, there are some times, even before viral media, even before there was an internet, back in 1980 the press hated ronald reagan. they said if ronald reagan is elected we'll go to war in a month, the economy will be worse than it is now. and the public said the heck with it, we like the guy. >> the key thing is knowing how to get your message out there, staying on message. we'll see if donald trump has learned that in the last couple of weeks. he seems to have. how long that will last, we'll see. in terms of coverage, again, on the democratic side, if there's a scandal there, bad story there, it's only one or two days. "the new york times" is making up for lost time in the last six months when there's a real question about her health. the shortage of coverage is the key. if they want to kill you, they repeat the story day after day.

>> bruce, when it comes time to grilling hillary the way they really gripped trump on things, they throw a lot of softball questions. we have some sort of a group of sound bites we put together of the way the press treats hillary at least on the press plane. let's play them. >> how are you doing? >> i'm doing great, thank you so much. >> how did you spend the last three days? >> i'll talk about that. >> that will be tonight after the newscast. can you give us -- >> no, i really am fine. "madam secretary" is coming back, i get a big kick out of that. >> bruce, if i was the editor of that reporter, asking her what television shows she's watching, i would call the next minute and say, what the heck are you wasting our time for, you had the time to ask her a serious question, you're asking what she watches on tv. >> what's fun about all these

complaints about hillary not having press conferences is, i had a wise old editor of mine back in the day at the "chicago tribune" that said you should be focused on stories that people pick up the newspaper for because they can't get them anywhere else, especially in this day and age. you have these dc lemmings, who wants a press conference? go out and dig something up. >> i want serious questions about the e-mails answered or at least put to hillary clinton. so far it's very rare to find that happening. >> you know what, bruce mentioned the president's approval rating. you know, the press has been been given a hard time by the administration. that may be why his approval rating is falsely high. he's used the bully pulpit to bully the press. chuck grassley on the e-mails, he said the american people only have a small slice of what happened with the private server and that there's misleading and inaccurate information about the server right now in the media.

the obama administration has gotten a pass on the worst economic recovery on the great depressi depression. >> steve, if you had a reporter out there on the press plane asking questions of hillary clinton about what she watched on television, whether it's all the serious stuff, what would you have done with that reporter? >> i would have done what you suggested and say, why am i paying you to ask softball questions? we want real information. and you saw with matt lauer when he started to press her a little bit on the e-mails, he was pilloried by the press, how dare you ask followup questions, my gosh, how rude you are. >> and sabrina, it leads me to ask whether or not the press is afraid of asking her tough questions, because then the whole establishment comes down on them and criticizes them for being anti-woman or anti-liberal. >> i actually thought matt lauer was moving in the right direction. i was surprised how much criticism there was against him.

sometimes it comes down less to bias than laziness. on friday donald trump held a press conference and for almost a full hour a lot of the cable news stations just had a camera on an empty podium. at some point you wonder, isn't there something else you want to cover? >> i've got to be honest, i've wondered about the press for a long time. coming up next, american elections hacked, that's the new worry from the head of the national security agency. would calls for homeland security to oversee our election security to oversee our election process a upgrade your phone system and learn how you could save at vonage.com/business

mom: you know you're beautiful right, you know that? daughter: even you're beautiful. i got bullied for wearing glasses. share if you're against bullying. mom: we put it out there, it just took off. 3 million people have shared this post.

don't let bullies get you down, i stand with you. that whole family's wearing glasses. daughter: yay! mom: i wear glasses and i'm proud. daughter: i even have the army on my team. mom: all the kind comments have brought my child joy. i don't feel thank you is enough. daughter: yes!

the head of the nsa voicing concern this week that our u.s. election system could be vulnerable to cyberhackers. now homeland security is considering whether to put our electoral voting systems under its protection and some control. mike, on friday, the department of homeland security issued a statement, i'm going to read from it. the department of homeland security stands ready to assist

state and local election officials in protecting their systems. it's important to emphasize what dhs since does not entail. it is strictly voluntary and does not entail regulation, binding directives. does this make things better or worse that they would get involved, even in a limited capacity? >> terrible, david, it would be a complete power grab. when the secretary of state of louisiana asked the head of dhs several weeks ago whether or not there was any credible evidence at all of a potential cyberattack, the head of dhs said no. why would they do this? because they want to take over local elections so they can do the same thing with elections that they had the irs do by going after conservative groups. >> we can talk about that in a moment. but bruce, they say that they're not going to like supersede local authority. that has been said by a lot of

federal agencies that eventually do supersede local authorities. does it concern you? >> not really. i mean, i think we've had all these, you know, hacking incidents almost daily of major political figures and so forth. but i think them being available and monitoring the system, it is a federal election, after all, it is a good thing. if we can't assure a safe election, it makes us seem like a third world country. >> steve, what do you think? >> in terms of integrity of elections, how about voter i.d., which democrats in washington vociferously fight against. how about cleaning tvoting roll of dead voters? talk about immortality, you can vote from the grave forever. mike is right, this is simply a power grab, ultimately a power grab. you know how honest they'll be just as the irs was honest with conservative groups.

>> nobody has been faulting the irs as much as you have over the years. it's supposed to be a neutral, nonpolitical organization, but it became political with the lois lerner scandal. >> they just want to be a tax collector. they don't want the tsa or postal service type entity governing elections because of incompetence. it's an unconstitutional overreach. states are already going to the fbi and to homeland security for h help. the director of the nsa says he likes that it's disparate, he likes that it's not connected because that's tougher to hack. >> we don't want russia in here. john, the dhs insists they're not going to supersede local authority. do you believe him? >> no, and i don't get the connection. i don't see why we would empower the dhs to somehow make our elections unsafe.

we're mistaking a symptom for the real problem. government has grown too large, hence people want to hack elections. if they had kept government within constitutional bounds, they wouldn't want it so much. it's a head fake. >> 19% is the percent of americans that trust government today. i don't think that most voters would be inclined to put any more power and control in government when it comes to voting rights. i'm with john, let's rein in the progressive state. >> at least a part of it is about federal control of our lives, there's too much of it. >> david, the obama justice department trying to do this in 2013. the supreme court stopped them. the doj was livid about it. this is an end run around the supreme court's ruling. this is the type of thing that

dictatorships try to do. >> the department of education started out small, grown into this massive institution. we want to go in the other direction, don't we? >> we already have the federal election commission. it appears with this, the law enforcement agencies at the federal level are merely asking the states that if you need help, we're here to help you. i don't think that's a bad thing. >> steve, is this just like the federal election commission getting involved? >> not at all. when the government says they're here to help, they're there to control you. and we've seen it with the epa. we've seen it with the fcc, now strangling the development of the internet. this is just another typical power grab. they always come in and say voluntary, but it's about as voluntary as a deal you can't refuse from tony. >> i remember that story. steve is in san fran today. thank you very much, gang. the "cashed in" gang is getting ready to roll at the bottom of the hour. what have you got?

we're breaking down the numbers so you can decide. see you all at 11:30. >> we'll be watching, eric, thank you very much. up first, would you get into a self-driving car? uber is rolling out their driverless cars in pittsburgh this week. bold technology or

uber is rolling out its driverless cars in the steel city this week. select riders in pittsburgh among the first in the world to experience the new technology firsthand. some safety experts say this kind of experimentation is

turning commuters into guinea pigs. john, i understand the safety concerns. aren't there always risks with breakthrough technology like this? >> absolutely. and implicit in these safety experts' suggestion is that human and government drivers somehow don't make life destroying errors, but they constantly do. the idea of driverless cars is to remove the human element from driving. will there be deaths? yes. but over time driving-related deaths will shrink. >> bruce, we're becoming a risk-averse society, we want a perfect world, which is impossible. >> the guinea pig quote brings to mind, there should be like an fda approval process for these cars. people should still ride in them if they want to be a part of an experiment. uber should be charged a fee like drug companies when drugs go through regulatory review. >> regulatory review, the

phrasing of that gives me the willies more than an accident. steve, taking risks is what america is all about, right, we wouldn't have had a space program, we wouldn't have had the switch from prop planes to jet planes if we didn't take risks. >> 120 years ago, if you had this regulatory structure, the automobile would never have been approved, something that's going to kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people a year. i would give a warning to uber, pennsylvania is a paradise for ambulance chasing trial lawyers. so they have a market value of $68 billion. they better be prepared for deep pockets, these guys are going to come after them. >> not only are woe sure there will be accidents in the future, there have been. there was a self-driving tesla car in china that led to a fights cras-- led to a fatal cr.

there are the results of it. >> keep the wheel in there and keep the brake pedal in there. some of cars don't have it. >> a second wheel and a second brake. >> that's the safe way to go. i'm personally leery of these, i wouldn't get in them. >> sabrina, you're from pittsburgh, i wonder if your more proud or afraid for your fellows in your hometown. >> i spent the first nine months of my life there, i'm proud. the government cannot legislate away, they keep trying to do so, it's not going to work. uber has a market interest in this experiment succeeding, you don't want to kill people any more than we want them to. i'm putting my money with them. >> mike, taxi drivers in new york, okay, we live in manhattan, how could anything be more dangerous than taxi drivers in new york? >> david, some of the taxi rides i've taken in new york would put amusement parks to shame. i say the wright brothers and henry ford are rolling over in their graves over this proposed

legislation. let it roll. coming up, couples who talk about money once a week than about money once a week than those who don't. what is success? about money once a week than those who don't. is it a professor who never stops being a student? is it a caregiver determined to take care of her own? or is it a lifetime of work that blazes the path to your passions? your personal success takes a financial partner who values it as much as you do. learn more at tiaa.org

we're back. we hope you can join us. meanwhile we have the picks that will make you and your loved one happy. here are price dividend stocks. >> they've got some blue chip names, nearly 15%. >> i tried to find something not to like about this stock. i think i'll have to buy some. >> spectra energy. >> a lot of people are switching to natural gas. >> wall street analysts are liking it, they're pretty

bullish on it. that's it for "forbes on fox," keep it right here, bolling continues with "cashin' in." welcome to a special edition of "cashin' in," the candidates, the economy, and the future for american prosperity. if you're paying attention this week, you likely heard president obama take a victory lap over some data that came out suggesting the economy is doing great. >> we turned around a declining economy. thanks, obama. >> wages increased 5.2% from 2014 to 2015, a huge jump for certain. the poverty rate dropped a substantial 1.2%. these numbers appear to be good news for the middle class. but let's add some context to these claims. the truth is, it's been a rough decade for the middle class. in