deal. how can you separate it? you know china is not. >> no, they are not. >> there you go. that does it for us. >> thanks for joining us today and every day. bulls and bears starts right now. david: hi everybody. this is bulls and bears what a day, huh? i'm david asman. joining me on the panel today, we have robert wolf, jonas max, gary b smith and liz. something truly extraordinary happened today, president trump meeting with democratic leaders pelosi and schumer in the oval office to discuss the budget and the border wall funding. the president making clear that he wants more money for his wall than democrats are offering. nancy pelosi suggesting if he wants it, he ought to get it in this congress and that is where we pick up this really unprecedented public oval office meeting. take a listen. >> i think the american people

recognize that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is not worth anything. and that we should not have a shutdown. you have the white house. you have the senate. you have the house of representatives. you have the votes. you should pass it. >> we don't have the votes, nancy, because in the senate we need 60 votes. >> but in the house, you could bring it up right now. >> excuse me, but i can't get it passed in the house if it is not going to pass in the senate. i don't want to waste time. >> the fact is you can get it started that way. >> the house we could get passed very easily and we do. but the problem is the senate because we need 10 democrats to vote. they are not going to vote. >> the point is is that there are equities to be weighed. we're here to have a conversation so i don't think we should have a debate in front of the press on this. but the fact is the house republicans could bring up this bill, if they had the votes immediately and set the tone for

what you want. >> we thought we were going to get it passed in the senate, nancy, we would do it immediately, we would get it passed very easily in the house. -- if we thought we were going to get it passed in the senate, nancy, we would do it immediately. we can't get it passed in the senate because we need 10 democrat votes. >> let us have the conversation and then we can meet with the press again. the fact is that legislating which is what we do, again, you make your point, you state your case, that's what the house republicans could do, if they had the votes. but there are no votes in the house, majority votes for a wall. no matter where you -- >> if you i needed the votes for the wall in the house, i would have them in one session. it would be done. >> go do it. >> it doesn't help because we need 10 democrats in the senate. >> don't put it on the senate. put it on a negotiation. >> let me ask you this. we're doing this in a very friendly manner. it doesn't help for me to take a vote in the house where i will win easily with the republicans. >> you won't win. >> it doesn't help to take the

vote because i'm not going to get the vote of the senate. i need 10 senators. that's the problem. >> you have the white house. you have the senate. >> i have the white house. the white house is done. the house would give me the vote if i wanted it but i can't because i need -- nancy i need 10 votes from chuck. >> let me say something here. >> let me say one thing. the fact is, you do not have the votes in the house. >> nancy, i do. we need border security. nancy, we need border security. very simple. >> of course we do. >> we need border security. people are pouring into our country including terrorists. we caught tenter -- we caught ten terrorists over the last short period of time. ten. these are very serious people. our border agents, all of our law enforcement has been incredible what they have done. we caught ten terrorists. these were people who were looking to do harm. more important than anything, we need border security of which the wall is a piece. it is important. chuck, do you want to say something? >> we have a lot of disagreements here.

the washington today gave you a whole lot of pinocchios because they say you constantly mistate how much of the wall is built. that's not the point. >> the washington post. >> we do not want to shut down the government. you were called 20 times to shut down the government. you say i want to shut down the government. we don't. we want to come to an agreement. if we can't come to an agreement, we have solutions that would pass the house and senate right now and would not shut down the government. that's what we're urging you to do, not threaten to shut down the government. >> the last time you shut it down -- >> let me say something, mr. president. you just say my way or we'll shut down the government. we have a proposal that democrats and republicans will support to do a cr that will not shut down the government. we urge you to take it. >> if it's not good border security, i won't take it. >> it is very good border security. >> if it's not good border security, i won't take it. when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our

border security and when you look at the job that we're doing -- >> you just said it is effective >> can i tell you something? >> you just said it is effective. >> without a wall, these are only areas where we have the walls. where you have walls, chuck, it is effective. where you don't have walls, it is not effective. >> let's call a halt to this. we have come in here as the first branch of government, article i, the legislative branch. we're coming in in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government -- >> -- open. >> we're going to keep it open if we have border security. if we don't have border security, chuck, we're not going to keep it open. >> you're bragging about what has been done. >> by us. >> we want to do the same thing we did last year this year. that's our proposal. if it is good then, it is good now. it won't shut down the government. >> chuck, we can build up a much bigger section in private. >> let's debate in private. okay? >> okay. >> we need border security. i think we all agree we need

border security. we do. >> good. >> we do. >> see? we get along. thank you, everybody. >> you say border security and the wall, can you have border security without the wall? >> you need the wall. the wall is a part of border security. >> -- what it means to have border security. >> we need border security. the wall is a part of border security. you can't have very good border security without the wall, no. >> that's not true. that's a political promise. the border security is a way to effectively honor our responsibility -- >> and the experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem. >> it totally solves the problem. it's very important. >> how do we meet the needs of the american people, who have needs. the economy -- people are losing their jobs. our members are already -- >> we have the lowest unemployment that we have had in

50 years. >> people of the republican party are losing their offices now because of the transition. >> we gained in the senate. nancy, we gained in the senate. excuse me, did we win the senate? we won the senate. >> when the president brags that he won north dakota and indiana, he's in real trouble. >> i did. >> let me say this -- >> we did win north dakota and indiana. >> this is the most unfortunate thing. we came in here in good faith and we're entering into this kind of a discussion in the public view. >> but it is not bad, nancy. it is called transparency. >> it is not transparency when we're not stipulating to a set of facts and when we want to have a debate with you about saying we confront some of those facts -- >> you know what? we need border security. that's what we're going to be talking about, border security. if we don't have border security, we will shut down the government. this country needs border security. the wall is a part of the border security. we're going to have a wall.

we've built a lot of it already. >> is that what you need? a wall? >> we need to have effective border security. we need a wall in certain parts. not in all parts, but in certain parts of a 2,000 mile border, we need a wall. >> how much money? >> we are doing it much under budget. we're actually way under budget on the areas we have venerate d -- we have renovated and areas we have built. if we got 5 million dollars, we could do a tremendous chunk of wall. >> [inaudible]. >> we're going to see. look, we have to have the wall. this isn't a question. this is a national emergency. drugs are pouring into our country. people with tremendous medical difficulty and medical problems are pouring in, in many cases, it is contagious. they are pouring into our country. we have to have border security. we have to have a wall as part of border security. and i don't think we really disagree so much. i also know that, you know, nancy's in a situation where it's not easy for her to talk right now. i understand that. and i fully understand that.

we're going to have a good discussion. and we're going to see what happens. but we have to have border security. >> mr. president, please don't characterize the strength that i bring to this meeting, as a leader of the house democrats, who just won a big victory. >> elections have consequences, mr. president. >> let me just say -- >> that's why the country is doing so well. >> -- [inaudible] -- are not factual. we have to have an evidence based conversation about what works, what money has been spent and how effective it is. this is about the security of our country. we've taken an oath to protect and defend. we don't want to have that mischaracterized by anyone. >> i agree with that. no no, i agree with that. >> let us have a conversation where we don't have to contradict in public the statistics that you put forth, but instead can have a conversation about what would really work, and what the american people deserve from us at this uncertain time in their

lives. >> the one thing i think we can agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute, and you want to shut it down. you keep talking about it >> no, the last time chuck you shut it down. >> no, no. >> and then you opened it very quickly. i don't want to do what you did. >> 20 times you have called for i will shut down the government if i don't get my wall. >> you want to know something? >> you said it. >> i will take it. >> okay, good. >> you know what i will say? yes, if we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through military, through anything you want to call, i will shut down the government. >> fair enough. we disagree. >> i'm proud -- i will tell you what, i'm proud to shut down the government for border security, chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country, so i will take the mantle. i will be the one to shut it down. i'm not going to blame you for it. the last time you shut it down, it didn't work. i will take the mantle of shutting it down. i'm going to shut it down for

border security. >> we believe you shouldn't shut it down. >> thank you very much, everybody. david: wow, we really thought you should see that whole thing, unedited. that's why we presented that big chunk for you. did we just see a preview of the next two years? we discuss what just happened and what it all means for a potential of a partial government shutdown. that's coming next.

♪ ♪ (buzzing) gather new insights, leave your data protected on-site, and put it all to work with ai. the ibm cloud. the cloud for smarter business. the ibm cloud. dependability award for its midsize car-the chevy malibu. hi.i just wanted to tell you that chevy won a j.d.power i forgot. chevy also won a j.d. power dependability award for its light-duty truck the chevy silverado. oh, and since the chevy equinox and traverse also won chevy is the only brand to earn the j.d. power dependability award across cars, trucks and suvs-three years in a row. phew. third time's the charm...

our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. holiday inn express. book now for at least 20% off

during our annual sale. comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.

david: i have to say i thought it was a very good meeting. -- >> i have to say i thought it was a very good meeting. when the press left, we had a fairly long meeting and we discussed a lot of great subjects. david: a very good meeting, that's how the president describes it in a dramatic live action debate in the white house. trump threatening to shut down the government over border security if democrats don't offer 5 billion dollars over two years. that's what he's requesting. democrat leaders nancy pelosi and chuck schumer kept pleading with the president to keep the discussion private, but the president responded, quote, it's called transparency. so gang, is this what we can expect for the next two years? what do you think? >> yes, i think it is what we're going to expect for the next two years. what a horrible display of political posturing. that's what all this was about. as you pointed out, david, during the break, 5 billion

dollars is change to a government that loves to spend and about to spend 800 billion dollars on a farm bill. david: 867 billion dollars. >> sorry, rounding error of 67 billion. the answer is 5 billion dollars is not the issue. the issue is nancy pelosi trying to get democrats to support her to be speaker again and chuck schumer who played entirely to the cameras during this entire conversation, trying to prove that he is not going to knuckle under to president trump. i thought it was appalling and i think honestly the country should be embarrassed. >> well, i would agree partially with liz on that. i think it was dysfunctional all around. i think mike pence, vice president pence who didn't say a word throughout probably saw it how we saw it. it seemed like a comedy show. they were repeating each other without listening to each other, without looking at each other. i think this wall vote would not pass in the house. so agree with the president that he wouldn't only not pass in the senate but it wouldn't pass in

the house today. there are not enough votes to pass in the house for 5 billion because they gave last year a billion dollars, and that hasn't even been spent yet. by the way, the 1.6 billion that they have approved, if they want to provide, there's a big difference between what's called walls and fence, what's called technical security and not technical security. listen, at the end of the day, they are all pandering to their voters, and i thought that this meeting was we're going into christmas season, it felt like the land of misfit toys. [laughter] >> well, i guess i differ a little bit from both bob and liz. first of all, i thought it was terrific theater. i don't think there was anything there that i had not suspected. i'm glad trump did this. you know, you ask, you kicked off david can we expect more of this? i don't think we can expect more of it. i think we're going to get a lot more of what we just saw to a greater level of detail. you got the irresistible force

in trump meeting the immovable object in schumer and pelosi. i think we're going to get more of that. you know, the final thing is trump is just, you know, we say in the financial world talking his book. he campaigned on this. and the latest poll has 70% of people that voted republican thinks he should not back down, so that's his campaign promise, of the party that he's in says don't back down, probably doing the smart thing politically. i think he's actually doing the smart thing for our country. so, you know, i'm not sure it is going to get resolved, but i think it's headed in the right direction. >> i'm going to come back to what liz said. i don't know if it is embarrassing. i feel like we're all like talking about elvis and the like, that he's shaking his hips too much and he's embarrassing the world, i think the world has changed, it is the future of politics. it's almost a reality show. you could almost put it on

pay-per-view. i don't think it's enough money to shut down the government. i think the democrats are missing an opportunity to really look better than the republicans in recent years, particularly, going back to the clinton investigation. we're not shutting down the government on 5 billion dollars, that's what you want. here's the rope, go hang yourself because it is going to cost more than that. i also think they should say we will give you this amount. is it the most important thing to help with security? is that submarine they are building, do we need that with the nuclear war we're going to have in the seas with the soviets? i think that's stupid. i think they need to cut that out of the budget and give it to the wall. as long as the public thinks they are safe -- david: here's what i liked to see. i like the fact that -- every one of them are at the pinnacle of their power moment, you have schumer. you have pelosi. and you have trump. they usually don't get pushback. they can only push back each

other. so i like it when people who think they are absolutely at the top get kind of a peer pushback. what do you think? >> here's my issue, and the reason i think it's embarrassing is we are not -- we should not be talking about a wall. we should talk apolicies that would actually help our immigration. -- we should talk about policies that would actually help our immigration situation. when trump became president, he was talking to pelosi and schumer about issues such as birthright citizenship about use of e verify, other measures which could stem and make a difference in our illegal immigration population. and that is what we should be talking about, not how to secure the border. by the way, i thought it was hilarious that nancy pelosi said oh yeah we believe in border security. how? in what way does she believe in border security? >> so a couple things, a lot going on in these ten minutes that we watched. i would respectfully disagree with jonas. i don't think we should accept that oval office is reality tv. >> i agree. >> i don't think that is what the oval office is for. i don't think it's good that we accept it. it is not the way i want to

watch it. i think that i go to liz's point, immigration is a problem. if you have the most powerful people in the country sitting in that room together, make something happen. that did not make something happen. david: hold on a second because the president did say and i'm going to quote him on immigrants, he said we want people who are going to help and love our country. he wants to change our immigration from this dumb lottery system which makes no sense to -- >> i haven't seen a -- >> david: absolutely. one based on merit rather than this lottery system which makes no sense to me. >> he did. david: get people who fill positions that we need here in the united states. >> you know, i disagree, though. i think if you'll go back through history, even though they weren't recorded, even back to when they were arguing over the declaration of independence, it was reality tv. they argued. they bickered. there hasn't been a time in politics where it hasn't been like this. it just wasn't recorded for tv. my other point is, you know,

back during the days of fdr and eisenhower, we spent probably in the equivalent of billions of dollars to do things like build the hoover dam, build the federal highway system, here trump is talking about something for national security. why is not thrown into the same bucket as the hoover dam? it is good for our country. it creates thousands of jobs. it seems like a win-win. you talk about the money, jonas brought up 5 billion dollars versus the latest whatever trident submarine, it is really nothing. >> the only thing i will say is one, i'm not sure what wall you are talking about, how long it is going to be and where you think it is going. number two, they have actually all come to agreement on the 1.6 billion that they're willing to pass this year. both sides, and the 1 billion last year of that. it's a fence and it is technical support and it is drones and it is more technological driven because a wall can't go through a disproportionate amount of the

areas. >> but really an awful lot of that conversation, schumer was advocating a continuing resolution, another kicking the can down the road. i mean, that is what they're -- that's what they are going to do. this is only 25% of the government. not shutting down the whole government. again, we should be having a sensible adult conversation. where is that conversation about immigration policy? david: totally with you there. >> again, i don't think it's -- >> in the history of politics, i'm almost positive there's never been this conversations that only occur in the ivy halls of the jfk government center at harvard. it just doesn't happen. this is real life. that's what we saw. >> yeah, again, i think the reality show level can be there as long as i think both sides should have some plans. we will give you this wall. here's how we're going to pay for it. our plan is to increase the legal immigration. and your plan is to keep the outlaws out. that's where we would meet in the middle.

it can be funny. they scream at each other and make references because it makes the public interested in the debate. you can get help on both sides. to gary's point, it is a project administration type of thing. i don't see how it is wasting anymore than the other programs. that means either have a tax for it or take it as part of the defense budget. as far as your earlier point about is it 100%? how much of the homeland security works 100%? does the tsa -- does that work 100%? i don't think the airport security is working 100% either. you want to compare apples to apples. it is going to be no worse than the other systems we're doing that makes us think we're secure. >> david, i would love for us to segue because the votes aren't there. what do we think about the government shutdown? i think that's a more important debate. david: we have to leave that question open. for all the talk about whether it was right or wrong, it was riveting. we were all riveted to what we saw, and that's why we ran so much of it in the first block. google's ceo testifying today before congress, and some of his answers left people more than a

little concerned. we'll break it all down, coming next. >> -- what search could look like if it were to be launched in a country like china. en my hd it rocked our world. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they took care of everything a to z. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. (tonand all thro' the house. 'twas the night before christma, not a creature was stirring, but everywhere else... there are performers, dancers, designers the dads and the drivers. there are doers of good and bringers of glee. this time of the year is so much more

than a bow and a tree. (morgan vo) those who give their best, deserve the best. get up to a $1,000 credit on select models now during the season of audi sales event. ...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy

with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling,.. ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com. ♪ ♪ this holiday season, families near you need your help. visit redcross.org now to donate.

david: so during his first time being grilled under oath on capitol hill, google ceo sundar pichai kept cool under pressure, but one of a few hot-button issues that came up was the potential for a censored search service in china. he kind of danced around the issue, didn't give a specific definitive answer but take a listen. >> right now we have no plans to launch in china. we don't have a search product there. our core mission is to provide users access to information. getting access to information is an important human right. we're always compelled across the world to try hard to provide that information, but right now there are no plans to launch

search in china. david: joining us now is congressman darrell issa, a member of the house judiciary committee who was at pichai's hearing today. congressman, good to see you. >> thank you. david: we will ask you about the china but there was the other issue of bias at google. mr. pichai says that google is not politically biassed at all. that's what he said today under oath. do you believe him? >> i believe he believes that, but the direction of my questioning was actually one that i think he's going back to look at, which is since there's an indication of bias in outcome, can you please work backwards to find out where in the algorithms these things occur because many of the members on the republican side brought out specific examples that showed that the outcome was not even where it otherwise should be, and, you know, some of them are well known cases. some less so. >> darrell, do you think it's possible that the real goal is

making as much money in any marketplace? and that just manifests itself in this country perhaps a liberal bias, but in china a censorship bias or whatever it takes in that particular market and that's really what's driving the company and we're looking at the symptoms not the actual root cause of the problem? >> well, exactly. i mean, the reality is corporations and their fiduciaries, including the ceo, have an obligation to maximize the profit of the company short-term and long-term. and so all of the discussion about creeds and so on, also go to that same source. right now google because it wouldn't give in to china's demands has been locked out of china. there is clearly a looking toward can they get back into china and can they do it without the rest of the global market shunning them because of their activity? i'm sure they are balancing exactly that. >> congressman, this is gary smith in florida.

i'm curious, when i look across the spectrum, i see bias from everyone from the washington post to cbs to time magazine. as far as i can tell, google is doing nothing illegal, biassed or not biassed. why are we even concerned if they are biassed? >> well, the reality is that unfair trade practices are not an insignificant problem, if you disadvantage a customer, and you advantage a customer, the ftc has authority. there are lots of reasons that when we talk about political bias, we're also talking about unfair trade practices. remember, they have said they don't do it. so if they say they don't do it, instead of hey we have every right to do it, then there's a legitimate debate of is the outcome unfair in some way? you know, let's remember, though, today was more than

anything else about people's right to privacy. this hearing, forget about people on both sides that got into side shows, this hearing was substantially about if i want to turn off your tracking of me, if i want to unload the data you collected from me, are you open and transparent so that i can do that? and that was where i think the most important questions came, where sundar did pretty well, but not perfect in showing that google is a pretty good actor, but could be better. >> yeah, in fact, congressman, i'm glad you raised that, because there have been a number of stories out in the last few weeks saying that no matter what you do, google is not only tracking you but keeping records of all kinds of information about you, and i think people are beginning to get nervous that they really don't have control at all over what google is recording about their whereabouts and their activities, even their conversations and their e-mails. there have been indications that

e-mails are sort of searched episodically or through algorithms for information that could help vendors and suppliers, shoppers, etc. what did he say about that because i think that's what worries people more than some of these other issues? >> well, this is one of the areas in which i don't think we did nearly enough to get that out. part of the reason was in a sense you almost need the technical expertise that he has in order to have a conversation. one of the things he said that was accurate which is verizon and comcast and all the other players including every place you search they are also part of that collection. in other words, if you are on your home wifi, that home wifi is actually able to tell me if you're surfing my site, where you are. so some of those things he has a legitimate right to say that the problem is bigger than google. some of his answers were fair, which is we know that almost

everybody, if they say show me a restaurant, wants a restaurant near them, not a restaurant just at random. so some of it was good discussion, but very clearly when it got to the dashboard and your ability to know what's being tracked and to turn it off, he just simply said they were improving it and they would continue to. he didn't say by any means that it is easy, tutorial and definitive. i think that's where a lot of people still don't have the trust that is going to be necessary, not just at google but throughout the internet because they are 90% of search, but they are less than 10% of the people who collect data. >> congressman, i have two questions, both about today, but very different. first, do you think that google and facebook and these type of companies that are driving advertising and media should be regulated like a media company? that's one. and then secondly, i would like to hear your view after we all

watched the ten-minute reality tv show in the white house today. it does not seem like there's going to be a vote where there's 5 billion of border funding, at least that's my opinion. and i would like to hear your view, if that doesn't take place, do you think we'll have a government shutdown? where would you be on that? two different questions, but both about today. >> sure. and let's take them in that order. you know, very very clearly there is a question of everyone who is advertising has different rules, including the difference between on air broadcast and cable and internet, and there is some serious work for congress to do, and there was a question today, which actually was a good one, which is that if let's just say a republican and a democrat are both advertising, how do they know they are getting the same price? well, his answer was well it all depends on where you're being

placed. in other words, we have no idea whether similar parties, but looking for two different set of voters are going to find very different prices. that's the kind of thing that can be tackled by a company like google or facebook and they can assure the federal election commission that they do have a plan for fairness. so -- david: congressman, i have to have to force a push question on his second question because we have to go. but will there be a government shutdown? your best guess, yes or no >> i don't believe there will be a government shutdown. i agree that there will be a compromise of less than 5 billion, in border wall, but not less than 5 billion in funding the men and women who stand at the border. david: congressman, great to see you again. thank you very much for being here. appreciate it >> thank you. david: china is now making their message even clearer, this time threatening punishment for anybody caught with apple products. one of our panelists sees light at the end of this tunnel. that's good news and that's next. all money managers might seem the same,

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. but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? each of these food boxes represents a gift of life for people here in israel who are in desperate need. these are very difficult times for israel and the jewish people as the government spends more and more of it's resources for battling terrorism.

the situation has become a crisis. every week the lines get longer and longer. there are more people who come than they expect because the numbers keep growing. the bible teaches, "blessed is he whose help is the god of jacob." "he upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. this $25 food box will provide one desperately need family here in israel with food, with hope and with a note inside each of these saying that it is from christians and jews in america who seek to bless them. with your phone call right now a food box will go out to one desperate family in israel. inside the food box is a special note that will bless them and will let them know that america strongs in solidarity with israel

in their struggle for survival. many of these people are ill, they're sick, they're alone. they don't have the money to afford things that many of us; most of us take for granted. i ask you to please help. go to your phone and tell us that you stand with israel at her time of need. israel and it's people need your help now. you can make a life changing difference by calling and saying that you will give a $25 food box to help a family in need in israel. thank you and god bless you for your support. for christmas because they keep getting better. there's smartouch for selfies, then there's four way stretch for flexibility. they even have smartdri. see? stays dry. so get isotoner gloves for the whole family.

david: apple is now being dragged further into the trade war with china. this as some chinese companies have reportedly told their employees to only support huawei products even threatening punishment with anyone caught with apple products. also with the arrest of the huawei official, the trump administration is considering a quote travel advisory for business executives going to china. is there any light at the end of this tunnel? >> yes, there is because in fact we have seen some movement on trade negotiations in the last couple of days. china is apparently rolling back the tariffs on automobiles imported into china -- david: like the president said it was going to happen. >> exactly right. winning again. from 40% to 15%. they are talking about agricultural products and also about possibly changing made in china 2025 plan which has caused a lot of anxiety, not only in the united states, but also in

the eu. so i think the huawei thing is sort of a side show. it is not unimportant, don't get me wrong. yesterday a chinese official said he loved his iphone and the market went up 200 points. today they said they didn't like their iphones. it went down. this is going to keep going i'm afraid. >> i think liz has more optimism than i have. to me, neither side really wants to do a deal. i just don't feel that there's going to be a situation within 60 days that anyone's going to come out of that and be able to say yes, we can go forward that way. i see the only outcome is really rolling another 90 days. i don't see how we're going to get this done in this time period. i'm hopeful that this is the beginning of good news, but i don't see it. i think it is going to be a rocky road. >> i would say -- >> i kind of agree with -- i will go first. quickly jonas. >> go ahead. >> i kind of agree with bob on

this. i'm not as optimistic because this has to be framed in one of two ways. is this an economic fight we're having, or is it a political fight we're having? and every time i think and i think the two countries think it is economics, things start to move forward and then politics comes in, and we have seen world wars start over politics versus economics. that's why i'm kind of in bob's camp. i think this has become political now. both sides are getting their back up. that's why, you know, if that starts to escalate, oh my gosh, if, you know, you can't even visit one country or the other, this could get worse before it gets better. >> yeah, i'm a little concerned -- look, i mean it is nice that the tariffs went back to levels that they were at before, let's be honest. this started -- again that was a tariff that was mostly impacting german auto manufacturers believe it or not in the united states. this is going to gary's point, it seems to be going more

economic warfare direction than just a tariff war. i'm a little concerned that it is not a war we're prepared to fight well, if for no other reason their companies are so entrenched with their government, almost one in the same. you see -- look at our guys. they don't know how google makes money. they're not on the side or entrenched in our tech community like the ways they would be able to fight this. it is like a better army for lack of a better term. in that way i think we're at a weak point. in general we're at a strong point with china. and i think they want to end this because they have more to lose than us. but they can probably play a game we can't play because of how entrenched they are with their companies -- >> if i could bring it back to what you said. if we go back to the apple situation, it is great that to liz's point about agriculture and cars, but the truth, the big elephant in the room hasn't been talked about. that's intellectual property and patent theft. we have to get back to really why we have the big wars with them. david: coming up, french president macron responding to

violent rioting by offering economic freebies so will his rewarding bad behavior just make matters worse? we debate that, coming next.

i'm ken jacobus and i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet?

david: chaos continues in france

as at least four people have been killed and others injured during a shooting. what sparked the shooting still is not known. but this happening just a day after french president macron promised a number of economic perks to appease protesters but it seems it was not enough to calm the anger as demonstrators take to the streets again today and plan more for this week. the french government says the measures will cost taxpayers between 8 and 10 billion euros. did macron just reward bad behavior and can france really afford it? what do you think? >> i don't think he rewarded bad behavior. he rewarded david the behavior that the french government has created. look, it is like giving -- it is like letting your kids eat as much candy as they want and then getting mad when they get sick. we have a government that is 56% of their gdp. the government is more socialized than, you know, a lot of countries, certainly more than america. the government taxes like crazy.

and then they get mad that the people are upset with how the government is doing. what they should do is yes, it's going to cost them a heck of a lot of money. and it is going to cost them even more because i guarantee the french government is not going to shrink as they should. >> and gary's totally right. the problem is what they need to do or the kinds of reforms that macron was elected to enact which basically promotes economy growing, promotes labor, etc., and this is just going to go exactly the wrong way because they're going to have to raise taxes to raise that 11 billion dollars because they are up against their 3% budget deficit. this is really -- this is kind of a tragedy for france in my view. >> he made a mistake -- as i talked about the show recently, when they did the fuel tax, they needed to take income taxes down to offset. they wanted to do this global warming thing. this is about a country that is a snowball decline of

socialization. they never made it work like germany does. almost 10% unemployment. in a strong global economy at the end of the day relatively speaking because of all these policies and they are now in effect we have to reward people with more higher minimum wages, whatever, that are not affordable that led to the 10% unemployment rate in the first place. that's not going to solve the problem. to get out of it is going to be difficult and require a little more care than just i'm just going to raise taxes to fix the environment without somehow getting the unemployment rate down to actually get people in a better mindset about the social programs. again, there's other countries that do it much better than they do in europe. >> this is occupy wall street on steroids. really we're talking about greed and wealth, a perception of greed and wealth -- david: by the bureaucrats? >> being bailed out by hardworking laborers. this is kind of unfortunately you have an aging population that's making less money and in an environment where the growth is being protracted and actually has negative growth recently,

and, you know, how do you -- you know, encapsulate all these things you want to do when you don't have the money? david: most of the greed and wealth that i think is really upsetting protesters justifiably is from the bureaucracy. >> that's right. david: of all the people of greed and wealth, you don't want it to be the people you are paying. >> although macron did mention about changing the wealth inheritance -- >> as a percentage of gdp, france is the heist of all the developed countries -- highest of all developed countries in terms of taxes. this is problem they need to solve. david: coming next, bringing it back home, the u.s. postal service is looking to sell access to your mailbox so they can get out of debt. the outrage, coming up, right after a quick break. switched to liberty mutual. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and as a man... uh... or a woman... with very specific needs that i can't tell you about- say cheese. mr. landry?

oh no. hi mr. landry! liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

i'm ray and i quit smoking with chantix. smoking. it dictates your day. .. you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix.

use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. for me chantix worked.boom. end of story. talk to your doctor about chantix.

david: now our money losing post office wants to monetize the mailbox monopoly by franchising the mailbox out to private couriers. will people be willing to trade in their mailbox privacy so the usps can make up some of the money they are losing. >> they are under utilizing

their mailboxes. someone needs a mailbox with a drone-landing pad on it. they are already abusing your mailbox by stuffing all that junk mail into your mailbox. >> i think they should price things right. if they price things right, they won't lose money. that's what they need to do. that's why we can go to the fedex storer. >> the post office or the mailbox. >> president trump has proposed to change the international shipping. it's cheaper to send something to china than it does to des moines, iowa. i don't have a mailbox, i live

in the city, so i don't know. they have congressmen out there that won't let them close post offices that are money losers because they are mandated to be out there. the congressmen say you are not going to close that. on the issue of privacy. who doesn't have my data these days? safeway has it, the nsa, the dmv. they care about getting letters delivered cheaply. drive were they have extraordinary debt because of the pension fund. policy makers made pension deals they know they can never meet. >> the fact they can't make money in a period when everybody

is shipping everything because of online shopping. come on. david: they lost $68 billion the past 10 years. that's "bulls and bears." thanks for joining us. president trump: we need border security. we all agree we need border security. >> we have a disagreement about the wall. president trump: the wall is part of border security. >> we are coming in good faith to keep the government open. >> experts say you can do border security without a wall. president trump: i'm proud to shut down the government for border security. the people of this country don't want people with lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. liz: the dow turned south after a knock down-brag out