like this in today's world. you've got to think about it. charles: i love it, love any company that's been around a hundred years and i love dave asman. he's next. david: protests continuing and tech firms applauding the court decision to suspend president trump's immigration order which temporarily restricts immigrants from seven middle east countries. more than a hundred major u.s. tech giants came out denouncing the president's order saying it would hurt their business bus some here say, they're looking after their own self-interests and not america's interest. who has it right? hi, i'm david asman. welcome to forbes on fox. and steve forbes, elizabeth macdonald, don, bruce, mike, who has it right here? >> the tech companies are looking out for their own self-interest. increasingly over the years they've been using foreign

labor to lower their cost thereby boosting their profits. that's what they're concerned about right now, their own bottom line. david: so, bruce, we should be concerned about our own survival, should we not? >> well, listen the way this was executed was so ham-handed or in the case of donald, small-handed that it sends a message to the countries, to muslims, we don't want you here. we want the best talent and best products in this country and telling these folks, even setting the legalities of it aside the optics don't look good. david: optics, don't look good, but here is what they say, the companies. they say the order makes it more difficult and expensive for u.s. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world's best employees. it threatens company's ability to attract talent, business and investment to the united states. do you buy that? >> no, david. that order was specifically for countries that weren't able to vet immigrants coming to this

country. that's why it was those seven countries and not other muslim countries like indonesia. the real threat to high-tech is not this order, ham-handed though it may have been, a threat to national security. it allows people to recruit people overseas to do this work. that's the challenge, not this order. david: rich, you're our touchstone to silicon valley. you're there and no one knows the inside of the companies better than you do. what do you think? is it about them or their con for the rest of america? >> well, look, five out of the six most valuable companies on the face of the earth are american tech companies. they're located in two states, washington and california, that happen to be blue states. two of them are led by indian immigrants. of course, they're pro immigration, and of course, they're sensitive to the largely liberal constituents they have at their company. i really reject this idea,

david. when did conservatives start arguing that companies weren't able to act in their own self-interest and somehow that was unamerican. david: there's nothing wrong with working in your own self-interest and that's parts of capitalism, but when they say their futures as a business are actually affected by the immigration order, do you buy that? >> yeah, i do buy that and by the way, mike was talking about infosys and other companies like that in the united states using low cost labor. amazon, google and facebook are not using low cost labor. david: by the way, e-mack, one thing that we heard at the beginning of this, that it was a muslim ban, that might partly have been from the rhetoric of donald trump, et cetera, but it's clearly not a muslim ban. you look at seven countries, the countries designated by president obama, not by president trump originally, as needing extra scrutiny. it's not a muslim ban. >> no, it's not. by the way, no one is for any ban of any religion.

no one is talking about that, that should not be the issue. even the head of the official of the uae said it's not a muslim ban. and chuck schumer after the paris attack said yes, we should do a refugee pause. i don't see how comments on the campaign trail or rudy guiliani, render under the constitution they're saying that universities, and so forth. we get it, four out of the top ten tech companies, i think a lo lot of them are immigrants and we get that and understand this. what this is about is collapsed countries and no one-- no one trusts the vetting there. david: john, what's the libertarian view? >> oh, idea that they're doing it to bring down their labor costs is laughable and i think that mike knows that. the bigger picture, this is bad for all companies when the size and scope of government grows, it decreases our freedom and by

extension, decreases economic growth. the idea then that some refugee ban is going to make us safer from terrorists defies common sense. they would always get around something as basic as that. david: mike, he threw down the gauntlet. >> my good buddy used to be a tech consultant for oracle. several years ago oracle canned him because he was aring chaing too much and he hired foreigners. i disagree with my buddy john, i think that safety should be a priority. david: bruce, isn't that a reasonable argument, safety should be the priority? president trump over the week said put the safety of americans as his number one priority as well. >> okay, well, if he's doing that then why didn't he include saudi arabia and pakistan, the home of the 9/11 attackers and where they came from on the list. it doesn't make sense to

people. >> it's not ridiculous, it was rendered over the obama administration. i hear what bruce is saying, other countries have muslim majorities and that's why it's not a muslim ban. they're focusing on seven for a reason. by the way since 9/11 according to the senate judiciary subcommittee, something like five dozen of six dozen terrorists arrested here and plotting attacks came from those seven countries. david: steve, i just want to be clear about this, why saudi arabia was not on the list because saudi arabia, according to the government, i'm not justifying it, but this is what they say, they have tightened their standards for those individuals who are allowed visas, whereas these other countries, the seven countries on the immigration order are barely countries, at least many of them. they-- it's difficult to find any way that they vet the people that are coming here. >> precisely, david. you have saudi arabia, you have pakistan and others. they don't have this extreme vetting because they are able

to do some of the vetting there, but those seven countries in particular aren't able to do there what is needed to bring people over here and that was-- that's why those seven were chosen. by the way, it's abouten pointed out going back to president carter, he used the same kind of power, president obama did the same thing, in particular situations. so this was nothing new. this was, yes, the order was not handled well, but primarily it's because it's donald trump. david: and even the head of hhs admitted that, general kelly said, look, it was hamhanded the way this thing was rolled out. >> dhs. david: dhs, department of homeland security. i've got to ask you, this is a temporary pause, it's not a full-blown ban. what's wrong with taking assessment with the way these countries, again, many don't have a clear order of any kind internally, taking a pause and say let's see if we can tighten up the vetting standards by which these people come to the united states?

anything wrong with that? >> david, no. and i agree with you on that. but looking at it through the eyes of these tech companies that are located in blue states that have been tremendously successful, two of the top ones are led by indian immigrants, they're going to be pro immigration and they have a constituencies. and trump is sleeping in the bed he made. during the campaign, trump needlessly picked fights with these companies. david: i just want it say one thing, steve, on wednesday of this week, the head of intel, which is one of the groups that was part of this thing, condemning the immigration order, he went into the white house and i think we can roll a film of that, he was actually in the oval office, the president introduced him, sort of gave him a platform to advertise the next generation and what i love about business folks as opposed to politicians, they can disagree on some things and work comfortably together on others.

>> intel is expanding, that's why they were in the oval office. the key thing is, they focus on the order. the real debate is going to come up with the h1b visas, specifically through high technology, that's where the real wabattle is going to come. the order is small compared to that. david: stay tuned for round two coming up. coming up next here, turns out the agency put in place to protect you, the consumer, has hundreds of employees, hundreds of employees making six figures. well, now some here are asking, are they protecting us or are they this is the silverado special edition. this is one gorgeous truck. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's 5. aaaahh!! ooohh!! uh! holy mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. which one's your favorite? come home with me! it's truck month! find your tag for an average total value over $11,000 on chevy silverado all star editions when you finance through gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.

you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon.

on fox. david: republicans this week proposing to slash funds to an agency created by dodd frank. the consumer financial protection bureau is what it's called. saying it's become a regulatory monster in need of being reined in or perhaps even wiped out. and this might fan the flames to do it. a new report revealing hundreds of employees at the agency are making six figures.

hundreds of them. with some even topping vice-president mike pence's salary. so, steve, today's consumer watch dogs derbying bucks? >> absolutely not. they're not account today anyone. they have an unlimited budget because the fed prints all the money they want ton they've done egregious thing going off unpopular things, imposing fines and never revealing the faces behind the fines. it's running amok and deserves to go and the bucks are the least of it. eric: bruce, one of the things, the most of it for me in those bucks, they set their own salaries. this is an agency accountable to no one. >> well, certainly, you could talk a little about the accountability, but the only thing monstrous the agency is doing, it's brought in $12 billion and returned to consumers. this agency was involved in the wells fargo case, that when wells fargo was setting up unauthorized accounts, and it

also had a fine against the naval credit union which was doing some unscrupulous things to veterans. david: i'm going to surprise you, you are absolutely right and e-mack, he makes the point, that's why this agency needs accountability and it hasn't. it takes a lot of money away from the private sector and oshlgss like this. bureaucracies like this need to be accountable to congress. that's the way our system works. this isn't. >> 11 billion in 2015 for-- you know, i hear what bruce is saying, you want to protect consumers. i think it's unconstitutional. basically this is a data mining operation. they've helped consumers, i get it, but when you treat the banks like a budget line item and that's how they treat the banking sector which takes money out of the bank that could be us ooh-- used for loebs. david: that's the way it was set up. it was set up by liz warren,

her brainchild as a part of dodd-frank and set up to be unaccountable. the d.c. court of appeals said it was an unconstitutional agency because the president's not free to fire the guy at the head. >> even if the cfpb were accountable, it still wouldn't be necessary. we should still abolish it. it doesn't take a genius to say that the marketplace is about protecting the consumer simply because if you do a bad job by that consumer, there's voluminous competition for your business. we don't need what is an accountable or unaccountable. david: mike, here is what one of the folks who put a target on this agency says. senator sass, i'm quoting him, he don't like it, the structure is based on the idea that government is unlimited and rights are dependent on the special dispensation of the experts who know better than the american people. what do you think of that? >> well, he's right, david. if you look at the salaries of

these people at this agency, three,t the average person earns in the private sector, that's horrendous and done tremendous part as being part of dodd-frank, the bank rules a couple of years ago. it's killed small business lending, dodd-frank has. this agency should be abolished, as should dodd-frank. david: isn't this just the tip of the iceberg? >> the fat salaries are the tip of the iceberg. the problem is they force the banks to hire tens of thousands of compliance officers and you pay for that nonsense every time you walk up to an atm. david: that's right, by the way, e-mack, they're saying that we're saving all of this money, but bill makes a great point, we're paying for it. >> about the job, the government does create jobs in compliance, holy toledo, that's at play. but you know, mike makes a great point. these guys at scscb.

they're paid more than the average bank employee, wow. david: it's impossible to get rid of a bureaucracy once it's created. >> absolutely, it's created by legislation, now the republicans control things, they can undo it by legislation. this agency has done enormous harm, unaccountable taking money not only out of the bank being system, but a kangaroo court. you have to pay them off or they have the ability to ruin them. david: bruce, i know you think it's done good for the consumer, but it needs to be accountable to the american taxpayer? >> we didn't have a congress that was in the hip pockets of the very banks it was designed to keep in check, maybe we wouldn't need to worry. if congress is getting rid of this and-- >> wait a minute, this unit is the biggest bank. david: go ahead. >> this unit is the biggest bank of all, the federal reserve, what are you talking about. david: the federal reserve is supposed to have oversight. . >> wells fargo.

david: and rolling in at the bottom of the hour. eric: a mainstream tv host asking if president trump is taking us down a dangerous path like russia, media winding up dead. and deporting illegal immigrants. should we be bashing law enforcement by enforcing the law? to you at 11:30. david: thanks, we will be watching. first, president trump calling out nordstrom for dropping ivanka's fashion brand. some democrats say supporting his daughter's line is crossing the

(announcer) at boll and branch, we believe everyone deserves a great night's sleep. so we created the perfect sheets.

made from pure, 100% organic cotton. we made it our mission to perfect every detail. until finally, the softest, most comfortable sheets you'll ever sleep on. try them for 30 nights and get $50 off your first set at bollandbranch.com, promo code: tv. and her new mobile wedding business.tte at first, getting paid was tough... until she got quickbooks. now she sends invoices, sees when they've been viewed and ta-da, paid twice as fast! see how at quickbooks-dot-com.

[ alarm weather.eping ] ♪ [ laughter ] cartoons. wait for it. [ cat screech ] [ laughter ] ♪ [ screaming ] [ laughter ] make everyday awesome with the power of xfinity x1... hi grandma! and the fastest internet. [ girl screaming ]

[ laughter ] >> some president trump critics ripping him for ripping nordstrom over dropping ivanka's fashion line. it's one of several retailers doing it after trump haters called for a boycott for stores carrying it. nordstrom says it's over slumping sales, but steve, you say a father has a right to defend his daughter. >> if trump didn't defend his daughter in my mind, that would be an impeachable offense. and sadly-- and i have five daughters. and sadly. >> i think they'll come grovelling back just like caring. and this president looks like louie the 13th. and will have to release press

releases flattering to the emporer. david: mike, isn't this instance different from others. in this case he's defending his daughter. >> i don't know, man, where i sit a father's love for his daughter is a father's love for his daughter. there's nothing like it, i like to think i would do the same thing for my daughter that president trump did. david: e-mack, i'm sure your father would have done the same for you. >> he would have for all four of his daughters. you know what? i just don't know why we're politicizing clothes. i think it's just so weird. [laughter] >> rich, it has been done before and in fact, our own steve forbes used to have a letter, he doesn't have it anymore, family used to have a letter from harry truman to a reviewer, harry truman's daughter was a singer and got a bad review and here is what harry truman wrote to the reviewer, some day i hope to meets you. when that happens you'll need a new nose and beef steak for black eyes and perhaps as a supporter--

below. >> the supporter below i guess harry could deliver a swift kick. official washington thought truman went beyond the pale, but america loved him for the statement. david: bruce, is president trump mixing personal with professional. he has two tweet sites. he has one real donald trump, the private one, and potus trump site and sending messages over both of them. is that mixing too many things? >> i think so. i mean, it just comes across as looking like he's promoting-- using he and the family are using the white house for financial gain. for goodness sake, ivanka has been on television every day since through the campaign. i think that she can market her brand and defend herself. david: she does have a lot of brands, but we should mention, elinore roosevelt, the wife of fdr use today sell, while she was first lady, airlines, she would sell the airline business, mattresses and hot

dogs. she used to sell hot dogs while she was first lady. >> well, maybe ivanka can now be peddling instead of hot dogs, cheeseburgers or something like that. the fact they're making a big ho-ha over it, take a deep breath. david: valentine's day is around the corner. instead of the issue flowers and chocolateseseseses dear predictable, there's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced, our senses awake, our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say: if you love something... set it free. see you around, giulia ♪

>> just in time for valentine's day, the stocks to fall in love with. e-mack, facebook, why. >> wall streeters like this stock and think it has room to run. david: bill. >> the reason that doubling profits make the insanely high stock price tolerable. david: a place to share your love. royal caribbean cruises, bill, why do you like it? >> did you know it has a honeymoon registry, how is that for revenue. david: that's romantic, e-mack. >> it has a slippery profit line that goes up and down more

than an ocean wave? >> oh, boy, two different opinions on that. thank you, gang. that's it for forbes on fox. have a wonderful weekend and a great valentine's day. the number one business block continues with eric bolling and cashin' in. eric: president trump supporters accusing the mainstream media of intensifying its assault on the president. here is a big reason why. msnbc suggesting that president trump maybe headed down, quote, a dangerous path like russia where journalists are being killed. take a listen. >> what is your sense of why this president is going above and beyond, bending over backwards, if you will, to stay away from criticizing the russian president and to almost give him an excuse. as we know, there are some -- since 2000 a couple dozen journalists