melissa: no tricks, just better treats. trick or treater can ditch unwanted candy this halloween in exchange for something better. connell: genius business. reese's has a candy converter. people can trade in undesirable sweets and they will make it into a reese's peanut butter cup. melissa: smash it all together. i can't wait. i'm going trick or treating right now. hi, everybody. this is "bulls & bears." joining me is liz, rick, gary b. smith, and heather zumaranga. liz and gary are both fox contributors. let's get right to it. stocks soaring for the second straight day. the dow closing up 241 points, well above 25,000 now. president trump speaking at the

white house this afternoon is warning investors once again. take a listen. >> the midterms for some reason don't do so well for republicans, i think you are all going to lose a lot of money. i hate to say that. i think you're going to lose a lot of money. people are waiting on your 401(k)s and everything else. they are waiting to see what happens with the midterms and if it comes out good like we think it probably will, because there's a good feeling in the air. there are a lot of people voting. go out and vote. if it comes out good i think the market's going to continue to go through a period like we have never seen before. david: so the president talking up the economy, talking up the market. you couldn't see larry kudlow there tossing him softballs but what do you think, gang? liz: he's got another tsunami of economic news coming out this week that was incredibly favorable. to the extent investors are looking at economics and the growth and earnings which are 25% this quarter, looks like it might be 20% the next quarter, trump is on very sound ground. i think he's right, a lot of

this is coming about because of his policies and programs and i think if democrats make big mov moves, either house or senate, that will change. >> look at the jobs data. the jobs data, 277,000, wages going up 3.1% year over year. the labor market is very robust. that is actually helping the economy and consumer confidence at two decade highs, is going to make for the best holiday shopping season ever, i think, going into year end. >> the problem is the president's predicting the market's going to crash if democrats succeed in getting one of the houses. i agree with your analysis, liz. i don't agree with the president. we have had rocky markets because we always have rocky markets before elections. check out the history. people are unsure where it's going. when this is resolved on tuesday, no matter which way it's resolved, there's no more questions. market gets better. i would argue, though, if the democrats do succeed in the house, now you have something the market loves before everything else and that is

stalemate in washington. nothing makes the market happier. david: good point. go ahead. >> i kind of agree with rick in that the one big question is resolved. i give trump credit. i think he's playing the right card, actually. he's kind of like an insurance salesman. he's saying look, you know, unless you get property insurance, your house goes up in flames, there's nothing we can do. i think that's smart of him. but again, i think kind of the consensus of the panel is we're going to be all right. i'm not sure the market loves a stalemate so much. i don't think it's bad, though, to have a republican senate, at least history shows republican senate, republican president and a blue house of representatives, if you will, i think the market will do all right. i think liz alluded to and heather that we have a very good economy.

the foundations there. we have seen from the earnings, my gosh, just in tech alone, companies like amazon, google, facebook, their revenues are increasing like 30%, 40%. i think that's all good. david: there's one thing that maybe not would be good, if the democrats won the house, and that would be all of the various investigations. we talked about this before. the investigations that would be cooked up on all kinds of industries throughout the united states. >> exactly right. plus you have maxine waters the head of the financial services committee, adam schiff head of intelligence committee. these people, heads of committees, can subpoena records and really, you know, pursue investigations which by the way, nancy pelosi has vowed to do as has maxine waters and adam schiff. it will be really a mess. >> you are really scaring the markets. i guess it's just because it's halloween. maxine waters, the head of financial service committee, that will spook the markets for sure. >> not enough. >> everybody is assuming maxine waters will chair that committee, finance committee,

because she's the ranking democrat. it doesn't necessarily go that way. and don't be so sure that it's going to. there will be investigations if the democrats take the house. but it's not going to be into companies. it's going to be into the white house. and that's that stalemate the markets love. david: it will be companies as well. believe me. >> but here's the thing. we have had so many investigations right now. fbi, russian collusion. let's call the whole kavanaugh hearings an investigation. i think it's just becoming noise for the average american out there. like oh, yeah, another investigation. i'm sure trump has done something wrong. at this point, i think a lot of that, 99%, is factored in and i think people are starting to look in their wallets, they have jobs, they're making money, the economy's good. that's what's going to matter in the end. david: companies are looking into their wallets because now they are paying millions and millions of dollars to all these lawyers and legal firms on k street in order to protect

themselves. they are concerned that the amount of money that they make might have to spend with these investigations is going to go through the roof. >> your problems with paying lawyers is what? david: i have a lot of problems with lawyers. >> president trump actually talked about the jobs situation today, talked about not only job creation but the fact wages are going up because let's face it, demand for labor is enormous. let's toss to president trump in the white house today. >> if you remember the previous administration said there won't be any more manufacturing jobs. you're going to need a magic wand and all of that. we had the magic wand, because we have almost 600,000 manufacturing jobs since the election and it's going to go much, much higher than that. and these are among our best jobs. i mean, if you look at jobs, those are great jobs. they are high-paying jobs, they are skilled jobs. people are being trained for those jobs. and i think, look, i think that companies coming in, you have some of the great companies and i really appreciate your top people coming from these great

companies, and i just feel that they can train people far better than the government. liz: that was a meeting in the white house, in case everyone didn't get a chance to see it, where he and ivanka actually talked to business leaders about job training programs and so forth. just the kind of private sector initiative that i think people want to see coming out of the trump white house and has proved pretty effective. david: plus we have this incredible jobs report today, the adp report, the big kahuna is on friday. we had 227,000 jobs in october that were created. 900,000 more jobs than job seekers. that's extraordinary. >> i got to jump in on this. i think the jobs numbers are fantastic. i will give anybody credit who wants it, including president trump. david: but? >> good for him. my but is the wages. look, we see nominal wage rising. i heard 3.2% earlier. i don't think that's accurate. more like 2.8% year on year. >> 3.1 with wages and salaries. >> here's my problem.

that's the nominal number. i always look to the actual number which is after you factor in inflation which is becoming an issue and other costs. when you look at that number, we are going up and that's great, but we should be going up dramatically more. david: you're getting into the weeds. the thing is how people feel and people feel, what is also real, is people feeling good. consumer confidence is way up. it is affecting people's attitudes. it's very positive. liz: consumer confidence is high. >> implied in your statement is you are worried about the wages and i would say to this, not to be offhanded, i would say so what? is that the government's responsibility? david: no, it's not. >> on the one hand -- one second -- on the one hand, i don't think it h's trump's or t government's job to create jobs. i would like that to be organic. if we should create manufacturing, if the economy should create manufacturing

jobs, so be it. if it shouldn't, well, that's tough. that's the market. why should the government be in charge of increasing wages? >> i agree with you, gary. believe it or not, i came for halloween as a conservative today. i agree with you. i don't place the blame on the government in this. i place the blame on businesses who we have just given massive tax cuts to. swell, that's good. [ speaking simultaneously ] david: they're taking away as well. they are just taking away less. >> we passed legislation to give them that break. walmart is making $3 billion more a year on tax breaks. good for them. liz: they also raised minimum wage. they did raise minimum wage. look at walmart, look at amazon, target, kohl's, mcdonald's. >> walmart is not close yet. liz: the truth is wages are growing up at the fastest rate adjusted for inflation that they have in years.

as the jobs number continues to press, the availability of labor will accelerate. i guarantee you every quarter we have seen a bump up in wages, real wages. it's going to continue. >> what if you are a progressive? what is it about progress you don't like? david: i like progress. if liz is correct and it keeps going up and we finally get to a point where we start to dent into this inequality he will congratulate and praise anybody you want. i want to see -- >> what should be the role, what should the companies do? are you saying, let's just take a walmart out there. should they voluntarily agree to raise wages and if your answer is yes, i can tell you what, target and all the competitors are going to take advantage of walmart's higher costs. it doesn't pay. and you know what then? walmart's business will shrink and in the future, they will actually be able to hire less people. what do you want these companies

to do exactly? >> you make a fair point. here's how i would have done it if i was king of the world, god forbid. when i passed those tax breaks for those companies, and i don't object to that happening, i would have tied something to it. that we return to what real capitalism is, not what capitalism is today, and these companies accept their responsibility. they can decide what they pay but you can't make the argument to me that when people go to work for 40 hours a week and they have to get food stamps, the most basic thing we work for, gary, is food. something is wrong. >> i totally agree with you but that's not the government's responsibility to do that. >> how do we do it, then? >> how much walmart can make and by the way, the money the government is giving back is the money that walmart earned in the first place. liz: one way we are seeing progress is that people are being able to move up to the next layer of jobs. the fact is, there is polling on

this, people are able to move up the ladder of economic opportunity, if you will, because you are basically pushing now, companies are having to hire all kinds of people who were not hirable in the past. people like ex-felons, people without college degrees, they are taking the lowest level jobs and i think the average earnings is actually going up at a faster pace. there's some indication of that. by the way, the national association of business economists is talking about wages going up more in the succeeding period. >> i want to congratulate everyone and say you were right. david: the scariest halloween mask i heard of so far is rick dressed up as king of the world. can you imagine? >> conservative king of the world. david: coming up next, chinese hackers charged with trying to steal our aircraft technology so

is going after china in the courts a better way to get them to play fair than hitting them and us with tariffs?

hey guys. today we're here to talk about trucks. i love trucks. what the heck is that?! whoa! what truck brand comes from the family of the most dependable, longest-lasting full-size pickups on the road? i think it's the chevy. ford. is it ford? nope, it's not ford. i think it's ram. is it ram? not ram. that's a chevy! it's chevy! that's right. from the family of the most dependable, longest-lasting full-size pickups on the road. gorgeous. chevy hit it out of the ballpark with these. a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins.

to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. show me movies a grinch would love. [ bark ] nu uh, i'm picking the movie tonight. [ whimpers ] be sad, i enjoy it. show me grinchy movies.

oh, goody. [ whimpers ] mmm, fine! show me movies max would like. see the grinch in theaters by saying... "get grinch tickets" into your xfinity x1 voice remote. [ laughing ] uh oh. something in my throat. david: the trump administration

charging ten chinese intel agents with trying to hack into u.s. aviation companies to steal sensitive aircraft technology. it's a pretty solid case of exactly the kind of chinese business thievery that the administration is trying to stop. so are lawsuits like this a better way of getting them to change than imposing tariffs? what do you think, gang? liz: my view, all of the above. whatever we can do to push back on china. i'm totally serious. in fact, the "wall street journal" about two weeks ago ran a piece about there were like seven different avenues on which we are going after china. that is exactly appropriate. we've got to put the maximum pressure on right now, before xi jinping emerges from this somewhat tenuous grip on power he has. i don't mean he's going to be deposed but he's still new. he's still somewhat sensitive to what's going on around him. and the economy is hurting. this is the time. >> i got to tell you, for gary, this is me again being a conservative today, i guess, for halloween, but i've got a lot of sympathy for the president on

his policies with china. i have not had much sympathy for the trade policies with our allies, but look, i'm very sensitive to this theft of i.p. i'm thrilled that they are beating on the hackers. i think it's going to take a lot more. i think there are some other things we can do beyond the tariffs, but you know, the president really basically has my support when it comes to china on this. >> yeah, in 2015, september of 2015, president obama and president xi actually signed an agreement in a court pledging not to conduct these type of cyberattacks against each other in terms of economic espionage, and this is exactly what that violates. so i think this is right, a good way to deal with it, impose sanctions and i guess i would rather see sanctions over tariffs but at the end of the day, as long as we're addressing the issue of the theft of intellectual property, cyberattacks and the like, then if it's working, then yeah, let's try it. >> well, i hate to be a debbie

downer on this, but i was reading a long interview with the former head of the new york fbi cybersecurity. at the end of the article, he was quizzed on what can we do. at the end he said nothing. because the lawsuits, not saying there's nothing that can be done, but the fact of the matter is, these lawsuits cost us a heck of a lot of money and it's basically whack-a-mole. do we really think catching a few chinese cybercrooks is going to stop them from doing it? no. the reverse, the other side, the tariffs, that's like killing a fly with a sledge hammer. david: gary, what we are trying to do is not just win these legal cases. it's also a matter of bringing all of those other nations with us against china and what they're doing. >> i disagree with you.

that sounds great, but it sounds like another united nations policy where they all vote that china is bad. the only solution for this has to be home-grown. we have to have better hackers than them and the individual companies that are being targeted have to step it up. it's not just cybersecurity, by the way. most of cybersecurity attacks come from human error. as we all know, someone opens an e-mail that looks like it's from mastercard and then they are into the system. >> i think that's true. >> unless we all stand together, these lawsuits, it's frivolous. liz: my view is this is a way of showing the world, it's exposing what they're doing. by the way, of course there was anti-trump pushback on this thing. if trump weren't being so tough on china they wouldn't be doing it. this was activity going back to 2005. i don't really think it has anything to do with president trump. by the way, this is not the only lawsuit or conviction -- david: there are lots of them. liz: there are several going on at the same time. i think it's just a heads-up to

america this is what's happening. david: we do have the best court system, still, for all the imperfections, we have the best court system in the world right here in the united states. if we nail these cases and there are dozens more cases, if we nail them, gary, i think you're wrong. i think we are going to get a coalition, a coalition against china that could really do them a lot of harm. >> a lot of this intellectual property we're losing is the result of chinese watching companies that are going broke here that have promising technology. what do they do? they walk into bankruptcy court and they buy it. that's something that we can legislate against. there are things that we can be doing that we're not doing. david: okay. coming up, your big mac and coke could now come with a side of inflation. we will debate the possibly downside of a strong economy coming next. only half the story? at t. rowe price our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand.

like e-commerce spurring cardboard demand. the pursuit of allergy-free peanuts. and mobile payment reaching new markets. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t.rowe price. invest with confidence.

david: kind of a tricky moment

for the u.s. economy with unemployment at the lowest point in decades and economic growth strong, but with that may come a little bit of bad news. u.s. companies are raising prices on everything from plane tickets to paint to i-macs after years of low inflation. are higher prices inevitable with a growing economy like this? gang, what do you think? >> well, i will jump in first, i guess. i don't think so. i think a lot of these people writing about the fears of inflation are still referencing the '70s. give you an example. when i was growing up in eastern pennsylvania, there was only one mcdonald's in town. if they raised the prices, well, you had to pay it for a cheeseburger. now, just on route 1 here in vero beach there's a mcdonald's a wendy's a burger king, a sonic. they raise their prices, you go to the next place. the other thing, mcdonald's still has a dollar menu. they have had a dollar menu for years. you get a cheeseburger, fries

and a coke. what is that, ten cents in 1970 dollars? i think inflation, because of competition now, with the internet and other things, is way overrated. >> i think that's the key. you are going to see costs going up between wages and higher interest rates and so forth, and remember back in those days when these were issues that we talked about, companies that had pricing power raised prices and those that could not do so, were basically caught in margin squeezes. there's a very big distinction. i think that's what we will be looking for the next couple of years. >> what i'm hearing is that inflation may not be such a bad thing, right? the fed, for example, has been wanting and targeting 2% inflation for years and now we have inflation running around 2%, give or take, and wage growth at 3.1%, outpacing inflation. so i think people are still going to order the big macs. the price of oreos is going up. across the board, there are all different sectors that have to

raise prices not just because of tariffs, but because of increased costs due to inflation. that might not be a bad thing. a little bit. david: i'm agreeing with you guys way too much today. we have to put an end to this. i'm going to go against you a little bit here. i agree, i think people hear the word inflation and freak out. uncontrolled inflation, freak inflation, but let's not forget that some of these price increases we're seeing are on products that you steuse, steeld aluminum, and that is where we will start to see some trouble. we all remember the secretary of commerce holding up the campbell's soup can saying it's a penny. no, that was wrong. we have to keep our eye out. >> big, big offset with the high dollar. imports are -- >> i agree. but you are adding on. i just think that's going to hurt us. >> there are two different issues, though. there's the issue of inflation. let's just stipulate that i

think it was heather or liz, i don't know, said we have about 2% inflation. let's just stipulate that that increases a little. remember the fed measures -- or whoever, bureau of labor statistics, whoever, measures the cpi, and what they don't take into effect, they see the price of beef going up, for example. what they don't take into account is people can mitigate that, well, then we're not going to have beef this week, we are going to have pork or chicken. there's so many other options out there than there was 20, 30, 40 years ago, that any effective inflation is mitigated. david: there's the whole idea something is wrong with a hot economy. this whole idea of an overheated economy. i think the fed, by the way, i can't remember who it was that brought it up but the fed is buying into that, that there's something about an overheated economy that's bad and therefore, you have to immediately raise interest rates more than they should. >> absolutely. you don't want to get behind the curve either and have inflation get out of control with an

overheated economy. that's why president trump has tweeted about the federal reserve. jay powell being happy, so to speak, about raising interest rates. and for the most part, i think he should remain an independent body and he is, outside of presidential pressers, hopefully, and they are going to hike again in december because inflation is rising and that's okay. you raise a quarter a basis point in december and a few more times next year and we get to whatever is the normalized rate that he's targeting. david: there have been other fed chairmen who have been pressured by other presidents. >> we can do without that. david: it came out in a diary of paul voelker's very recently. president trump a big winner in indiana but could his trade policies with china impact voters on tuesday's midterm election? trump says not to worry. a fair trade deal could happen. >> if you look at comparing us to, as an example, china, we're going way up and china has been hurt over the last number of

months, and they will be fine and let's see what happens. ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to.

trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. and it works 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

david: the gop's bid to win an indiana seat, senate seat which is held by a democrat, could come down to how president trump's trade skirmishes are affecting the state's economy. fox news' mike tolbin is in indianapolis with the very latest. hi, mike. reporter: hi, david. there are 60,000 farms here in indiana so that farm vote is going to count and a lot of that comes down to soybeans. the soybean farmers aren't sleeping too well at night and that's because with all the trade disputes with china their soybeans are down $2 per bushel. they want to see things solidified with china so they can make decisions like how much capital they will invest going into the planting season next time around. the steel workers are a bit different. steel jobs have rebounded to the tune of about 10,000 jobs. they are still in the hole over the last half decade but the jobs are coming back.

the plants are operating at 79.4% capacity. what the steel industry wants is a sustained 80% capacity. but in the process, due to the tariffs, the president has won himself some support among the steel workers, even loyal democrats, union members, some of them say they will support the president and that could mean sending him a republican in the senate. the republican out here is mike braun, campaigns as an outsider. he's a businessman. he's got a lot of money. he's going up against the incumbent democrat, joe donnelly. the two of them are very similar. they have run neck and neck throughout this process but there's a new fox news poll coming out, you will see it in a special report, it's something to keep an eye on. we will see if the numbers break up at all. david: thanks a lot. we got a steelworker union representative right here, by the way. >> once upon a time. david: i have got to say, steel companies have actually gone down dramatically, the stock value has gone down since the tariffs were introduced. one might think they would be helped by that, but they haven't been. >> there's a reason for it. here's the reality.

certainly there are steel workers getting back to work a little bit since this happened and i think that's great. i used to spend my summers in the steel mills in ohio. but it is not particularly significant. i have looked at the data. it's not like they're taking shuttered steel mills and reopening them. you are seeing some additions to the mills that are still operating. it's good, but i got to tell you, elections are so interesting and it's about more than just whether your side wins or loses. we are going to learn a lot about the midwest next week. i'm waiting to see if strong trump supporters out there who are being affected, the agriculture sector, are going to change their minds or stick with him. he made a mistake, in my opinion. he never looked them in the eye and said sacrifice for your country, because they would have. they would have said yes. instead, he keeps telling them it's going to be over real soon. it's going to be okay. mistake. >> in the end, if it results in what we're targeting china for,

including theft of intellectual property, narrowing the deficit with china, et cetera, then i think the farmers will back him. will that happen in the next six days, negotiations with china and easing trade tensions, i don't think so. so the chinese retaliatory tariffs hurting president trump's base. those farmers in the agricultural sector, specifically soybeans in indiana, it really is hurting them. that trade issue in indiana, it really comes down to -- david: it's not just china, let's remember. let's throw in a couple facts about agriculture. it's america's third largest export in history. there are $12 billion in soybean sales we made to china alone last year. so all that could be affected. >> don't forget, we had a big surge in soybean exports ahead of the tariffs going into effect in the second quarter. i'm not sure that there's really been that much pain felt by the farmers. it has been amusing to see the "new york times" sending out reporters trying to find disaffected farmers.

many are saying it's tough but we're behind him. david: let me quickly interject. there's a big distinction between big corporate farmers and the small farmers who anything makes them worry they will lose their farm. go ahead, gary. i'm sorry. >> thank you. the other thing i found interesting from i guess it was mike's report is that the farmers did not want, they specifically did not say to get rid of the tariffs, keep the tariffs. they just wanted clarity as to what's going to happen going forward. to that point, the farmers, particularly soybean farmers, are already starting to switch crops, some to corn and some to marijuana, which may end up being more lucrative. >> let's hope we export that to china. >> the market adjusts to conditions. the farmers will adjust also. these tariffs i think are going to be temporary. that's the problem. the farmers then have to adjust back to changing conditions. david: let's not forget that president trump threw a bone to the farmers in the form of a

subsidy, an expansion of the ethanol subsidy. >> you should have hated that. david: i did. i did. i don't like subsidies. >> david was very outspoken about that. the truth is, it did sort of salve the wounds. there were farmers and large companies, too, by the way, that got significant rebates. >> farmers don't want it. they really don't. a lot of farmers have spoken up. david: they don't want government subsidies? >> they are saying we want to make it on selling our products. we don't want the government to bail us out. those farmers out there -- >> they are a tough breed. they are. by the way, it's not at all unusual for them to switch crops. >> that's true. >> the farm sector, something that's lost in this conversation, the farm sector has not been doing well. in fact, prices have been sort of trending lower and farm income has been trending lower in recent years. it's not like that he's taken them out of a really good place. they're not in a great place. david: there was a collapse of the commodity market began around 2007. >> just quickly, i will throw this. remember that screwing around with nafta all that time, all of

that corn that they're switching to that we used to sell to mexico, because nafta put the mexican corn growers out of business, they got tired of waiting for us. they are ordering corn from brazil now. david: you don't think we should have screwed around with nafta, by the way? >> we made some good changes but it didn't need to be that. we already had made those changes. >> we made great changes. protecting u.s. auto makers. >> but it was not a tearing up of the document. as a matter of fact, every single thing that's in the changes happened to be in the tpp. david: again, you are a progressive. it's progress. it's progress. as a progressive you should appreciate progress. we got to move on. coming up, san francisco's fight against homelessness has now turned into a battle between billionaires over taxes. how ironic. that's next. i am a family man.

i am a techie dad. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.

david: it's a battle royale between billionaires over a potential tax boost in san francisco to end homelessness. that's what they say. even with one of the largest budgets in the u.s., the crisis in silicon valley continues to get worse and is now pitting twitter ceo jack dorsey against salesforce ceo marc beniof against one another. beniof had this to say on fox business about an hour ago. take a listen.

>> philanthropy can only go so far. we need a half of 1% tax to make this happen and that is what we're advocating. that's why i'm supporting proposition c. this is really critical for our people here. you know, st. francis, our namesake patron, said in giving, we are going to receive. let me tell you, in san francisco we need prop c because we need to generate the money to build those shelters and to get these people off the streets. david: so will more taxes get people off the streets in san francisco? >> first, let us acknowledge that people like jack dorsey are incredibly hypocritical. they are totally advocating left wing policies, higher taxes on the rich, higher taxes on corporations and here they have a home-grown problem but it's not in my neighborhood, i don't want to spend the money, my company doesn't want to spend the money to fix it. to your point, i don't think they can. no matter how much money. >> i got to say, as a homeowner in san francisco, i am really torn on this. i appreciate beniof and the position he's taking. i also do not blame the other people in the tech companies who

have a problem with this. there's a history of the government in san francisco getting it to this point and not fixing it. why would anybody think they're going to fix it now? i would love to have seen these tech companies get together and say look, we have a civic obligation to our city. we're going to do something about this and work with the mayor. the mayor, by the way, is against prop c. a proposition was not the right way to go about this. i still like to see these big tech companies come together and help out our city. >> yeah. so here's the issue. 4,000 new homes, would that mean that people from other cities that are homeless in california, maybe they go to san francisco now because of these new homes, then number two, drive big business out of san francisco, so you actually lower tax receipts in the end. 300 companies are going to raise $300 million, increase taxes on those 300 companies to help offset $380 million it costs san francisco every year on homelessness. that's what they're trying to

do. i don't know if it will work. >> a couple thoughts. one is the question is can money to the homeless help and is it the right thing to do. the answer is yes. but the second question is who should be doing it. it's probably the role of private charity which has grown through depressions and booms to be, you know, that's the trillion dollar industry, if it will. if you think government should do it, yes, then vote for this proposition c but then i would argue we have been fighting the war on poverty since 1965. we have spent trillions and i mean trillions of dollars, and yet the poverty rate is still the same. so i would argue that private charity, private assistance, is much more effective than the government choosing to take money from some and give it to the others, no matter how -- david: to your point, gary, we

have a democratic mayor in new york, de blasio. he's increased the budget by 30%. we have more homeless than ever. we have dirtier streets than ever. so the question again, to your point, what does government do with the money, does government solve the problems with the money. i would argue no. >> also, part of the problem is you have had lax law enforcement in san francisco and we are going down this road, too, in new york city, where quality of life issues like going to the bathroom on the streets, et cetera, all of a sudden it's not even against the law anymore. i think you go back to broken windows policing and that kind of approach which says any infraction is an infraction and we are going to clean up the streets. i think that's what they have to do. >> liz, here's also how you can help the homeless problem, is that we have more jobs available as you were pointing out that people looking for work, so you look at skills training and you

get them -- they go back to school, get an education. i think that would have a bigger impact where they can afford a house themselves if they have a job. i think that's more important or just as important as having shelter. david: by the way, business growth, increased opportunity. opportunity solves a lot of problems. got to move on. coming up, midterms just six days away now, and the president ramping up his attacks on the democrats' medicare for all plan, so-called. but even after the president's warnings and all the disasters of obamacare's so-called free health care, still a lure that works. we perform over 50,000 operations a year in places like this. for the past 15 years, chubb has identified ways that we can strengthen our safety measures. and today, our hospitals have some of the best patient safety records in the country. now, we're constructing new buildings that will define the future of piedmont

and chubb is here, insuring our expansion. two million patients a year depend on us. and we depend on chubb. .. ♪ comfort. what we deliver by delivering.

but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better.

maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. david: we are counting down the final days. less than a tweeting mid-terms. the president said republicans will protect people with preexisting conditions far better than the dems. leadland vittert on how it could play out tuesday. >> top three issues when you talk to voters on both sides of the aisle. 230 democratic house candidates promised the government would take care of your healthcare. the bernie sanders approach is

taking over. >> here in maryland [inaudible] well, i want to ask those people how in the hell does it happen that we spend twice as much per capita on healthcare than the people of any other nation? reporter: republicans are worried enough about an exposed flank on healthcare that president trump is hitting back. president trump: a majority of democrats on the ballot for congress with signed up for a government takeover of healthcare that would oh bit right healthcare and terminate medicare advantage for half a million til now seniors. >> among toes senators

co-sponsoring a medicare for all bill. today halla harris and elizabeth warren. it's expected to cost $32.6 trillion. or roughly the cost of 2,500 aircraft carriers for the navy. david: i call it socialized medicine. they call it medicare for all. >> clearly every untonnized union worker group is behind this. lit push demand if for healthcare and push wages and salaries up for these people. i think you have to set aside the support this is getting from those groups. the question is can the nation afford it? when people hear about the fact they are going to lose their traditional healthcare policies,

they are not in favor of it. so this is one of those issues, the more you learn about it, the more they are not going to like it. >> it is going to cost that. but you know what they don't do the study on? how much money is going to be saved? it will convert the system. i don't support the bernie sanders medicare for all approach. i support something far less drastic to find out if this is going to work. but we have got to get honest on this discussion. we are not being honest. it's not going to kill medicare. the president is way overstating it for politics. >> can i offer a few points of rebuttal? you talk about the money that we'll save. i would say absolutely. if you want to have falling

apart facilities and antiquated equipment like in cuba. go ahead. if you want to have some of the longest wait times in the modern world like sweden does, in the e.u., i would say go ahead. if you want to convert instead of a doctor seeing you individually, have doctors see you in a group of 12 or 15 like they are considering doing in the united kingdom, i would say go ahead. there are all sorts of ways to save money. but you won't get the quality of care and response time that we have now. >> you mentioned 1965 in the last block. that's when medicare and medicaid were created. david: a little earlier than that. >> costs have gone up significantly since then. you want to protect american citizens. you need a healthcare system, i get it.

but we need to get costs under control. one idea is make the hospitals post their fees. make them public and make them compete with each other. david: you i agree with that figure, $32 trillion, that's the entire budget of the united states. we have have to cut defense, social security. it's the entire budget. >> nobody is saying the government is going to pay for it there will be a tax raise. now you have got to compare that tax raise before you can figure this out. our people paying less by paying an extra tax bill. i don't know the answer. neither do you. david: $30 trillion over 10 years. you cannot raise that much money in taxes. >> let private enterprise have a

shot at our system. the government is over half of the system. david: medicare, medicaid, the va. we are almost socialized medicine already. so much to talk about, so little time. thank you so much for watching. "evening edit" starts right now. president trump: we have an economy that's the hottest economy in the world. the job markets 3.7% is the best in 50 years. they are coming to joe ohio and a lot of different places. all this has led to optimism. there are a lot of people voting. fit cop out good, i think the market will go through a period like we have never seen before. liz: powerful stuff