there. i say jetblue up 20% in a year. >> two charlie dogs today, thanks guys for joining us, the cost of freedom number one business block on television continues with neil cavuto now. president-elect donald trump putting corporate america on notice from boeing to lockheed mart into carrier. >> it's a dance, you know, it's a little bit of a dance. but we're going to get the costs down and we're going to get it done beautifully. >> conversation with boeing produce positive results? >> i think so. we had the chairman of boeing, ceo, and i think we're looking to cut a tremendous amount of money. and i said to some of the folks, i said companies are not going to leave the united states anymore without consequences. not going to happen. it's not going to happen. >> cue the sopranos music. i'm neil cavuto.

merry christmas to each and all. this week president-elect sending yet another message to big business. his holiday season no less it's not about you. he seems to be saying. and in the case of government contractors, more like the taxpayers funding you. something the democrats should like to hear. and should make them more open to presumably addressing sacred spending cows of their own. so it got me wondering, it happens sometimes, if this is part of donald trump's art of the deal to get democrats making deals with him. to charles payne, charlie gasparino, along with ben stein and jessica. adam, kennedy at a rally right now so they couldn't join us. charles payne, do you, and i think there's a certain brilliance to this and i'm wondering if i'm layering the intentions a bit more than i should, but it has the right effect, right? >> it certainly has the right effect right now with all the names that you just mentioned. listen, here's the thing. first of all, he's taking on sacred cows of the republican

party. >> right. >> i mean, the defense. we're talking about he's taking defense head-on. no one ever touched defense before. he's putting them in a harsh spotlight, a glaring spotlight, and the world is watching them negotiate with them and open. it's really putting them on their heels. ceos of boeing and lockheed stepped out of mar-a-lago -- >> the ceo of lockheed martin hardly left the scene which -- >> what happened the next day? the next tweet we're going to have boeing look into perhaps f-18 going against the f-35. lockheed martin's stock gets hit. so, yeah, you know, you'll talk now, you'll talk real soon, but i think that the end result of this in d.c. less horse trading, less drawn out dramatic, you know, sort of negotiations, if you will. and perhaps more resolution, more solving problems rather than -- >> but is that the way about solving a problem that worries you, right? >> well, it's kind of like

another episode of "the apprentice," now it's the presidential version. i'm all for getting down the cost of defense contractor budgets. you know, why not? buzz, you know, and yeah it's nice he's engaging with major companies to a certain extent, but there's a synthetic feel to this thing. >> more historically presidents have never been in a contract negotiation with the defense department. so i think -- >> and these are done contracts, right? they were signed and sealed. but he's more or less putting everyone on notice they're not complete with me. and it's sending a signal out to anyone, any contractor this game stops. is that so bad? >> i usually don't agree with charlie, but in this case i have to. i think this is really a good point. >> you feel guilty about that. >> a little bit. i feel a little dirty. >> dirty? >> you know, he is doing something very different now. >> charlie or donald trump? >> charlie too, i think, are you doing something different? >> i've been beating up on trump for the entire campaign. >> i agree. me too. however, i think this is actually maybe this is what we need, you know torks go up

against these business titans in such a public forum to show everyone else, hey, listen, i'm really about making this work out. i'm really about economy is first. and we're going to go out and do it. >> presidents -- this is the first president-elect i know, ben stein, but presidents have often used the bully pulpit to get what they want, whether it's teddy roosevelt, john kenna used it to go after the steel industry price hikes, ronald reagan used it in another sense to go after air traffic control and striking when they said they couldn't. so make these powerful statements to make a big statement. is this -- >> my concern is this. i'm not really concerned with him getting the price of these things down. obviously we want the price to be reasonable and there's an enormous layer of bureaucracy that fights, fights, fights within the defense contractors to get the price down. i want our fighting men and women to have the very best weapons they can. i don't want the idea to be bargain price. i don't want the idea to be a cut price. i want them to have the very best weapons they can when they go into combat.

and if those weapons cost a little bit more, even if they cost a lot more, i'd rather have that than have donald trump cutting the price of them. >> i think there's room to cut here, right? $4.2 billion air force one -- i don't know, but i understand where you're coming. but, jessica, my view here is i think there's room to cut. if you've ever worked with a contractor at all, i mean, you know you build in -- it's going to go up and it's just a given. i think it's been accepted as a given. >> absolutely. this is what the coburn waste book was ultimately about, right? all the things government is spending money on we shouldn't be. at the end of the day donald trump is now the federal government as it were or will be on january 20th and he's acting like a smart consumer here, right? i hate to agree with this kind of trumpian process -- >> get democrats to look at sacred cows of their own, if it were entitlement spending maybe to slow the growth of it or to

be open to it in other words to get everyone going after the same goal of having a productive government? >> i think so. i think democrats are acutely aware of the fact that we are in the minority here. and now we don't even have the president anymore, right? >> the dmblgts are going to roll on social security and all that, no way? >> no, way, i don't think it will roll and it will be interesting say, we're going to privatize medicare, et cetera, but i think we know we have to compromise especially if we want $1 trillion in infrastructure. >> chuck schumer is not talking about compromise i should say this in the coburn book that you mentioned they talk about the f-16 being overpriced? >> no. >> my point is i just wonder, i have no problem with a president going out theand talking out defense budgets and whatever, my part is it real or is it show? are they really screwing us? do you think boeing is screwing us? >> with all due respect, without

nour necktie and everything, the president-elect campaigned on a promise of greatly increasing defense spending. >> i agree. >> and there's nothing wrong with that. we are way underarmed now. >> making my point. >> for the threats we face all around the world. i don't think the priority is to cut defense spending. it's increase defend spending. >> you're making my point. he can't on that but i want to know in reality are these defense contractors, you know, are they really ripping us off like he says? >> i think they are. >> charles payne, i know you broke these numbers down as well, but this air force one contract started about $2 billion, it blew to $4.2 billion. maybe they were adding a lot of stuff to it like, i don't know, wheels on the plane, but the fact is that is outrageous. i know people tell me to do contract work, that's the nature of the beast. >> right. >> maybe he's just saying that's bad and it's going to stop. >> i think it's how these numbers balloon that can be fixed. and that's where they rip the american public off. they come in with lowball offers

they know they can never achieve. once they secure the contract, they can go four, five, six years late and add billions and billions of dollars. >> do we know they're ripping us off? >> exactly. how much of this is show and how much is actual stuff he's going to get done? we're talking about reality star that's sitting here going out there -- >> build a house for you for $200,000 and then cost a million and -- you say i got the shaft. [ overlapping speakers ] >> i don't think anybody on this panel is a real expert at defense contracting. >> you keep saying they're ripping us off, ripping us off, we don't know they're ripping us off. >> that's my point. >> we've suffered terribly in a number of wars because our weapons were not good enough. >> that's my point. >> how do you know they're not ripping us off? >> here's the thing -- >> if you want to make that point. >> we can't have much of a discussion. >> we know washington, d.c. is notorious for instance building weapons that admirals and generals say they don't want,

giant tanks that will sink in the sand of the desert -- >> really? >> i think almost any government there's room to prune. >> yeah, but what i'm saying is, yes, there's room to improve. >> no, i said room to prune. i use words that rhyme. improve and prune, but i'm telling you that where is the m impir kal evidence boeing and lockheed is ripping aus you have? >> exactly right. >> he's using his builder, you know, wherewithal. >> he's pitting bidders against one another. that contract seems high to me, if you have something similar, boeing, you should do something. >> he's calling them in after the fact and saying i believe, me donald trump, who's a branding expert, believes that you defense contractors are r ripping us off. >> you like ben who i love dearly you would blindly continue to -- >> no, i would not blindly agree with donald trump. >> he is trying to cut the fat

here. >> how do you know? where's the fat? >> because it is over the course of the last 20 years, charlie, they have -- we have been known that -- >> everyone in government in every aspect of government it's time for a full accounting. >> don't call them in willy nilly -- >> oh, i would call everybody in willy nilly. >> really? you would get nothing done. >> a top to bottom study. >> yeah, you'll be having -- how's the pancakes after i'm done? in the meanwhile, in the wake of these new attacks, can we take terror threats offline by going after the threats they're using after the threats they're using ononononon

♪music ♪you fill up my senses ♪like a sleepy blue ocean ♪you fill up my senses ♪come fill me again

business." for all your headlines log onto foxnews.com. with terror attacks mounting, some victims' families are now suing, three of them in the orlando terror attack on the pulse nightclub there are slapping to facebook and twitter

and google with a lawsuit claiming their products are helping isis inspire these type of killers. here's what their lawyer just told me on fox business. are you arguing that those sites tipped it to the crazy murderous guy he became? >> what we're saying is that it contributed in part to his actions on that day. whether it was the sole cause or partial, you know, contributed, that is something that will be found out down the road. >> ben stein, what do you think of this? >> i think it's a very good idea to have some restrictions upon incitement to violence. we love freedom of speech. it's wonderful. it's a glorious gift from god, but there's no allowance for shouting fire in a crowded theater. and i don't think there should be any allowance for encouraging people to commit violent acts. and i don't mind at all the idea of the big social media sites being monitored either by themselves or by somebody else to try to crack down on that.

>> jessica. >> i agree, actually, with ben stein, which i don't think has ever happened before. no, i talked to a friend of mine -- >> merry christmas. >> it is, merry christmas, happy hanukkah and kwau kwanzaa. i was talking to my fen that works at youtube -- >> you have a friend that works atoutu? >> i do. she was saying that they have tons of people on this but every minute there are hundreds of thousands of hours of content uploaded. so they can't track it fast enough to make sure that they can get it down. and we know that isis puts videos up all the time that way. so this is an incredibly steep challenge for these social media companies, but they've got to do it. and i think this lawsuit will hopefully spur them into further action. we have to find a way to prevent this. >> i'm sounding like this leftist alarmist here. >> it's not bad. you'll really like it. >> i worry how far it goes though. >> here's the issue. we're talking about regulation, and we've talked about that a

lot here, but there's a section 230 of the federal communication decency act which basically protects all of these online social media sites. what point do we stop regulating so much to the point where we can't even protect our own people? that's what the problem is. when we were disseminating bigoted information online all over the web people believing like it's truth and then starting to act on it, that's problematic. >> where do you draw the line? the ones who act on it violently or the ones who take it as gospel truth and vote accordingly? >> the people who act on it violently. we can argue what's true and what is not. >> i'm just saying be careful what you wish for, that's all i'm saying. >> i'm saying we also neez regulation. >> i get nervous, what do you think? >> i'm in your -- listen, i think twitter and facebook have a responsibility to not allow people to break the law on their sites, which is, you know f you advocate violence and killing and terrorism, you are a conduit to breaking the law, you're a

party to that. but this whole notion that they should be responsible for every bit of speech that's in there, i mean, it's absurd. listen, there's people that say they kill based on being influenced by the bible. i mean, are we going to ban all bibles? that's where this gets to be tricky. there is a sort of legal standard here. you know, is your site or is whatever you're doing, is that being used as a conduit, a specific conduit for a specific act? >> but charlie, they're not releasing all things they're saying. >> they're trying. what are you going to do have a law you can't say xyz? if you are disseminating threatening information -- >> that's breaking the law. ben just said before holds true. >> violence, terrorism. >> no, listen, ben said before, you can't yell fire improperly in a crowded movie theater. you can't say let's get together and blow up the world trade center. you can't use something as a conduit. if you do that, you will be held accountable -- >> all right. what this guy -- what this lawyer is saying it's you have a

site up there impressionable people come upon it that it doesn't matter that 99% of them don't act out what's on that site, but the one guy who does you got to shut down that site. that's what's dangerous. >> well, i think too, it's so easy to put up a twitter site. i mean, you can put up 10,000 a day, they take them down, put up another 10,000 the next day. it's a tricky avenue. obviously i think they want to enforce the law. i think where a lot of people get upset with social media is they've been really tough with being social justice warriors in this country for language that they deem dangerous or people who may be advocating just a different political view that they deem as dangerous. but they don't deem terrorist, it seems like, from time to time, as dangerous as they deem maybe a right wing conservative talk show host. >> yeah. [ laughter ] president obama blaming fox news, speak of the devil, for bedevilling him for his own

party's demise. but did these two joes in his own party just say not so? today on "forbes on fox," teaming up to take terrorists down. the urgent call for government and private companies to work together to tear these barbarians apart. plus, the forbes new list of best countries for business. guess what, the u.s. doesn't even make the top 20. did president-elect trump's pro-business policies put us back on top? we'll see you at the top of the hour.

and now another joe, as in vice president joe biden, blaming his own party. what do you make of that? >> i think the democrats need to just shut it and move on. it's christmastime. let's move on. there is going to be a new president-elect and he's going to be president in a matter of a couple of weeks now. it's over. hillary clinton ran a terrible campaign. to take a quote from obama, don't boo, vote. that's what the people did, they voted in donald trump. that's where we are right now. if they wanted hillary clinton in, they should have went out, voted, it would have been fine. >> what do you make that democrats aren't saying that?

they're blaming everything but a bad campaign or this was a judgment upon obama's legacy, he himself was saying that after the election? >> it was definitely a referendum on the last eight years, and she was also running for the third term of her husband's presidency as well, and that's doubly difficult, historically speaking. i understand why this is tricky for president obama. he has to look ahead, look at obamacare, things he's staked his president on. i prefer biden to mansion, personally, and say we have to move on. we have elections in 2018 or 2020. the electoral college spoke, as it were. we're down but we're not out. >> u to acknowledge what you did wrong. stein, what did you think of it? >> i think the democrats

actually ran a very good campaign. hillary clinton was my classmate at yale law school, so i love her for that. but -- >> i didn't go to yale. i'm not that smart. >> i know where yale is. does that count? >> the ultra left is creating this as if it were some kind of catastrophe and their behavior is a mental health issue, not a policy issue. also the left like those people who yelled at mrs. trump. there are some kind of mental health problems, like a baby bottle being taken away from a baby and the baby is screaming. >> i think liberals are psychopa psychopathic, but the democrats have realized that the white working class, that they didn't represent the white working class for many years and they're getting scared. >> i disagree with ben. hillary ran a terrible campaign. >> it's a christmas present. i want to thank keith, i

want to thank charlie, i want to thank desco. great time, guys. you're looking at a very merry christmas with picks that are

welcome back. i want you to look at all the money charles payne has made you this year. charles, what are you looking at to top it next year? >> cnc industries. i think it's going to be a huge gigantic winner. deutsche bank just got over their mortgage issues, and even though european banks are in some trouble, i think this has an upside. >> those are eclectic picks. ben, what do you think? >> i love charles' picks and i admire him very much, and god bless him for making money, and i hope he becomes one of my neighbors very soon, but i will always go with the indexes and i will always go with mr. buffett.

>> even though he's had triple digit gains in some of his picks? >> god bless him. i'll just say god bless him. >> merry christmas, everyone. the call for freedom continues. crush the terrorists by crushing their money machine. the same week we see a deadly terror attack in berlin and a man arrested in virginia for trying to send cash to isis. now a house report is calling on president-elect trump to have the government team up even more with private companies to cut off the terrorists' money supply once and for all. will it work or will it just create more useless bureaucracy? hi, everybody. i'm david asman. let's go with steve forbes, sabrina schafer, bruce jabson. steve, is this report on