car service that is well over 100 bucks. ashley: there you go. expensive world. liz: you did a version of the mic drop, the pen drop. stuart: i did. pint of beer. ashley: i love it. stuart: time's up here, neil, it is yours. >> amazing what it was like before electricity paying all of that. thank you, my friend. this is a battle about the slowdown in the economy. that is something trump intended, anything having to do with trade and fallout from the judge's decision to essentially say the health care law is unconstitutional. we'll get into all of that. a lot of this is driven by growing fierce the economy might be slowing down here a tad. stuart said we're off the worst levels of the day. combine homebuilder sentiment. lowest level in 19 months. there is "usa today" survey of consumers getting nervous about

2019. ongoing data out of the likes of china, germany, italy, france, things are slowing down t suddenly moved to the front of the list to worry about. whether that is justified or not, turn a down year into a positive year, with little more than a couple weeks ago, let's ask market watchers lindsey bell, and scott shellady. what is the read there that the markets getting ahead of themselves or adequately reflectings latest concerns about a slowdown? >> the concerns about a slowdown. everything you mentioned there, nothing has been a surprise. the markets are taking it suddenly we have this sentiment change where everything is a surprise. but it is not. nothing changed since october the 1st except for the sentiment that is the problem. we gone from the overnight trade i'm a further time zone ahead of you, we used to see the market down 50 or 60 dow points rally

in the u.s., finish higher, we're up 50 or 60 overnight but as we get closer to the open, we sell off before the open. we have a big sentiment shift here because almost like we're trying to borrow worry. things have been so good for so long. we're borrowing trouble. market is supposed to go down roars it? what are the things we should worry about? we're worrying ourself into a tizzy. it is all overdone. brexit is a big deal. european economic issues. those were all known issues. we haven't had the thing that surprised us yet. i think it is just a storm, tempest in a tea cup. we're borrowing trouble, trying to justify why markets are at these levels? neil: it is an interesting point, lindsey. if you factor dividend companies pouring out, $21 billion through november, which is already beating last year's total year record, we have another month to go of numbers, dow, s&p, they're essentially flat.

they're not down when you tack for that in, people forget that, don't they? >> they forget that. how significantly corporations are buying back their shares. it will be about a trillion dollars in buyback thanks to tax reform and repatriation act of this year. i would love to see corporations giving more money back to their workers and their employees. you are starting to see wages grow slightly. unemployment is at a 50-year low. consumer confidence is still very high. may be off the highest levels but high by historical standards. so not all is bad out there. yes, we sit here, worry about what growth will look like next year. we're looking in the s&p 500 for about 7 1/2% earnings growth in 2019. sure that came down from 10% expectations earlier this year. but that's normal. we are going into a growth environment in the u.s. where you will see gdp slow from the peak levels that we saw this year. but, two to three 3% is still very good for any given year.

just sentiment out there is so negative right now, that you have investors clinging to the negative news or finding the one tidbit of negative news within the positive news. neil: that is a flip from what we had. we used to ignore the negative news and pounce on anything that looked better than expected. that for the time it hasn't changed. scott, when you look at this epicenter of the whole debate in brexit is, not to far away in france, big government costs but this european union looks less union than it has in quite some time how much does that factor into the global markets, where these markets go in the new year? >> well i mean, we have a joke in the office i didn't really know italy was the epicenter of the world when we were worried about it as much as we were. suddenly these european countries, or smallish, are starting to come to the forefront again because of sentiment change.

my biggest from with europe, it would be very difficult or a headwind for the states to continue to do so well while the rest of the world isn't doing so well. if you look at european economies they're in trouble. you could say that as part of asia. with that negative sentiment out there how long can the u.s. justify its returns in a world that is increasingly dragging them down by one foot. that is my biggest concern for 2019. how long can the u.s. go it along. we still have, the european union will still be the european union. there is nothing here that surprised us. macron has been barack macron for a long time. there is nothing on the horizon shocks me here. just the fact that donald trump sid such a great job changing sentiment. we've been borrowing trouble because it is too good for so long we're locking ourselves in a white round room because it has been too good for so long and we have to find something to worry about and that is what this market is all about if you ask me. neil: leave a different kind of

view of the president here that he did deliver the market runup. that he did deliver economic turn around, or kept it going. the rap he is getting sidetracked and kind of crazy. in other words, he is fixated on things like "saturday night live" should be looking at for collusion or he is taking away the very good performance he should brag about, what do you think? >> no, i agree. biggest thing taking away positive performance in the stock market which is key barometer of success is this trade war, this trade tension with china. yeah, looks like, china is weakening maybe we're in a position of power but we need the war to end. we need a resolution or at least know that we are going to get resolution in the next 90 days. without a resolution in front of us. businesses are uncertain. that is all they know. they don't know what to do. they will with hold business investing and with hold hiring

that is a concern. that will create a slow down in our economy. neil: all you money guys are worried. worry, worry. thank you very much, i do appreciate it. china and this trade deal, that used to be the sort of the epicenter of this debate. we get a deal with china, at least gives us a way to dispense with the unknown. we can at least secure a deal and move on and worry about things like a showdown or whatever. is it really that simple? does that put the pressure on china to score a deal because it needs one more than we do? really depends with mom you're chatting. we're chatting right now with fox news contributor, very, very smart market read, liz peak. what do you think, the pressure supposedly on china to come to the table because they need it more. i could make a convincing argument either way. what do you say? >> i think the biggest thing in trump's favor right now is that he isn't facing any kind of re-election issue for two years. so he has some time to work on this china problem. it's a problem, neil.

i think it would be very easy for the administration to cave, to take easy wins, lower tariffs, promises of better behavior in terms of opening up markets and stuff but we know those will not come through. and we know that the chinese are talking a very good became about opening up their economy but they're not doing it. so i think there is just, i think there is an appetite in the white house for holding firm even if it penalizes our growth a little bit in 2019. i agree with your panelists there. there is some uncertainty out there. part of it is china driven. that will take a little fizz out of the bottle as we go into next year. you know what? in the long term, i think we have to kind of view this as a long-term ambition of this administration, it is important to rein in china's worst practices. neil: all right. be that as it may, wouldn't irony be, liz, we do score a deal with the chinese just as they're heading no a slowdown or

worse? >> well they already are. i mean they -- neil: yeah. >> there is a lot of data points in china, whether plunging car sales, foreign direct investment has leveled off. neil: would that take the punch out of a deal, if we score a deal with an economy might not do as much as we hoped or buy as much as we hoped? >> no. china is vast. even though growth is slow, it is still a fast growing economy relative to every other big country in the world. it is still an engine of progress. the problem xi xinping made it currently an engine of regression in terms of china's position in the world. the good news, elites in china are beginning to hit back at president xi who amassed so much power on to himself. that i think eventually drives forward progress with our relationship. neil: liz, the president did comment on the federal reserve meeting this week. he made it very clear, he feels, that slammed the federal reserve

again. no reason to move right now, quoting here because the dollar is so strong. inflation is so low. do you think that jerome powell and fomc members are in this sort of no-win situation, no matter what they do, they can't win? >> i don't think they will be listening to president trump honestly. they are listening to a lot of other voices maybe including stan drunkenmiller. neil: what did you make of that? don't do it now? >> i think they're right. where is the impetus when we have this massive shrinking of the fed's balance sheet going on, where is the need to raise interest rates, particularly when the rest of the world is slowing down and have abandoned any effort to raise interest rates? so we're creating distortions as our ultralow rates did many years. if we jack them up too much, neil, that we'll have incredibly strong dollar. that puts pressure on emerging market economies and all kinds of other stress points.

i think it's a mistake. i think they raise rates this week. then i think they will signal a much more temperate view of next year. neil: the temperate view is three more hikes next year. >> i think there will be less than that. they will say it will be data driven i think it should be. people will be sharpening down their pencils to expectation of two rate hikes. neil: my producers will kill me, liz, if they opt to not hike rates wouldn't that trigger a selloff people would -- >> they would terp that, exactly. they would interpret that as weaker growth. look the u.s. is still in pretty good shape. consumer spending is fine. not as high as we like. but it is fine. i don't think they will do that but i think they will signalsoft er ground ahead. neil: liz, so grad to have you have you as a contributor. >> thank you. neil: i know i get sort of hung up on numbers and attest to the

fact that i'm dull, think of that a overnight lending rate, for overnight money is 2 1/2%. to hold it for 10 years is 2.87%. what does that tell you? it tells you right now the markets themselves don't see much of a chance of growth or anything that would be heated at all for the next 10 years, so much so they kind of see it, what you get for overnight money. when that happens, there are worries out there. it can unwind. but for the time-being it hasn't. why is that? after this.

neil: all right. we have only a few more days before the government lights to keep running. then we're told friday, midnight it all could go out. at least some of it. it would be a partial government shut down if republicans and democrats don't resolve difference about the wall. it may be $3 billion but that trivializes debate. come friday, we're hearing from chad pergram on the hill. what are you hearing, chad. >> everybody on capitol hill is putting onus on the president of the united states. the house of representatives is not back until wednesday. by squeezing that time, there is a lot of pressure to pass

something, anything, to punt it into the new year and force the president to sign it the, whether a stop gap bill for couple weeks, get them in the first quarter of the year and tangle over that in the first quarter of the year once democrats control the house of representatives. i talked to one senior republican congressman, it is very bad optics for the president to have government shut down, partial government shut down at christmastime. he added this president might not care. it would be nine of 15 departments and dozens of agencies. when you think about from a business perspective who might be affected here, look at the department of agriculture. they just passed a farm bill on capitol hill. there is a lot of questions about the trade agreement that still has to be ratified by congress between mexico and canada. so farmers will be unable to inchoir about the department of agriculture, planting, seeds, those type of decisions they make for the spring. home loans, fha, won't be in for business for home loans at the end of the year. but that said, if you were going to have a government shutdown

there is not a lot of big government goes on at end of fiscal year, excuse me the end of the calendar year, it would be limited in scope. nobody wants a post shut down, frankly. neil: having said that though the ever a time to do it, hardship for those who pay for it, much of the nation's attention is focused on a holiday. at a time most are looking and thinking about other matters, the question is, how long they can cavalierly go on that way, right? >> right. that is the question. i had somebody else on the republican side of the aisle said, let's punt to the new year and then we'll somehow get the democrats to take a tough vote, get these new democrats in the house on record opposed to wall funding or for wall funding use them against them in 2020. already the politicking is going on. i said, wait a minute, how will the vote come up? democrats will be in the control of the house of representatives, you can't force that vote. they backtracked all of a

sudden. that shows you how republicans in the house of representatives are not aligned with what will happen in january with switch over to the house of representatives. some people think on republican side, are being very critical of leadership saying we can't shut down the government over this border wall issue. we did not perform well in the swing districts and suburban districts where issue of a border wall is not important. if that is the case, that could come back-to-back fire to them 2020. neil: you ought to stick towards following capitol hill developments. you seem to have a knack for it. >> hockey and baseball. i work on that too as well. neil: thank you my friend. you're the best. let's get the read from phil wegman, "washington examiner" writer. there is another school of thought on the shut down, sad did i, depending on your view or not, we kind ever gotten used to it. with this president, it would be 11th technically in times and varying degrees of impact.

so is that working to the president's advantage that the shock effect is off? >> i think that the shock effect definitely is off here because at this point, shutdown dramas are like bad b list movies. it is a type of melodrama we know what to expect. someone in the white house will make a threat. someone on capitol hill will hold a press conference. at the end of the day they will have a deal or come up with a short term deal. what makes this one different the secs are significantly lower -- stakes. you and chad talked about this the at infiguring. important to note this will be a partial government shut down. 75% of government spending is guaranteed through september of 2019. things like the pentagon and hhs. it would be a limited shutdown, of the yes there would be political consequences but this would not be politically consequential as the shutdowns during the obama administration. neil: when people's social security checks or medicare payments and the rest

are held on the vine or defense appropriations, you're right about that. i wonder whether people look at this, a pox on both your houses i don't know who ultimately gets the blame one way or other and side that does doesn't care because the impact what it was. what do you think? >> i think you're hitting the nail right on the head. you have both republicans and democrats playing to their own bases. that leave as large swath of people in the middle are getting frustrated with the same sort of show they have seen play out again and again. trump, who wants to honor the promise to build the wall, you know placate the right. you have the left who hell-bent on resistance in order to satisfy the left. that makes it very difficult for either side to come together on any type of compromise. i think the rest of the country out there, who isn't watching politics with it bad breath, they're getting increasingly frustrated. neil: i think you're right about all of the above.

phil, always great having you. >> thank you, sir. neil: phil wegman. the president has a problem with the mainstream media, that you know. now he lumped saturday night lives with the mainstream media. all because of that particular skit. at least the latest. >> i want to be president again. i want to be president again. >> listen, donald, every time a bell rings, someone quits or goes to jail. ♪

>> a world where you were never president? i think we can arrange that. >> what's that music? >> mike pence is d.j.ing. [laughter] >> mike, is this what you're doing now? >> hell yeah, don. it is great to be myself. thank god i was never your vice president. >> what the hell is happening with eric. >> since eric doesn't run the

entire trump organization he was able to attend adults education classes. >> merry christmas, father. or as they say in spanish. feliz nasty dad. neil: the president must have seen that. he was rip-roaring furious about it. tweeted about the show. wondered why "snl" continues to get away with mainstream media attacks, constantly on the administration and they're kind of joined at hip it is collusion in of itself. charlie gasparino. what do you hi. >> defamation. pure, simple defamation. neil: when he makes these attacks he is just elevating the show? >> you know it is interesting. there is, he hates the media, most of it. i think he likes us by the way. neil: no. us is kind of a sweeping term. >> you less than others. neil: right. you less than all. >> that's true.

so there's a, i guess there is a hierarchy of hatred. sitting at the top, the one that has the most, gets the most vial reaction from donald trump is nbc. neil: right. >> he, as a matter of fact he calls comcast the owner of nbsc public enemy number one. why does he hate them the most? cnns like aaa baseball in terms of trump hatred compared to what nbc brings to the table. nbc brings a cultural attack through stuff like "snl" and various shows. news attacks through nbc and opinion attacks through msnbc. it hits, it hits, it hits on all levels against donald trump. and it is backed by a multiga is i will i don't -- gazillion dolr corporate entity, comcast.

trump understands the model being built. neil: but does he take it to a new level, all or nothing, less than the news coverage you see, democratic comments, it should be tested in the courts. it can't be the way it is only to defame and belittle. collusion? >> here is something else that's going on. there is, his justice department, we have just reconfirmed this with sources close to the trump antitrust division, they are still looking at whether to reopen an antitrust against comcast because they believe they perform monopolies i can behavior or denying programing or charging extra for programming to rival cable companies. they're -- that is going on following a complaint by the american cable association and others about comcast's behavior. so what i'm saying here is -- neil: something like this would be a tough -- >> that is insane. that will never go to court or

maybe it will, but the other stuff, this is a company that provides, use its programs to squeeze others and a backdoor way to get on them, get at them is clearly on the table here. again, why does trump hate them more than even cnn, he obviously despises, jim acosta, all that, they are aaa baseball he believes what comcast brings to the table. a cultural attack a news attack, a opinion attack, all backed up by a massive corporation that is helping -- neil: he is arguing in the name of humor it has gotten very, very mean. i haven't met a president or heard a president who hasn't had problems the way he is presented on late-night talk shows or the rest. john kennedy, who arguably had best press coverage had problem with vaughn meter's album making fun of his accent. nixon went on "laugh-in." you can't let them see you sweat. when they see him sweat like

this, they know they scored a hit. >> nixon went on "laugh-in," yes. i think he got the irs to go after scott wrest ton at "times" and others. he used level of government. neil: but the court would not back up the behavior. i can remember when larry flynt went after jerry fallwell and the supreme court essentially, ruled unanimously this is fair game. you're a public figure. that is the way it goes. >> he doesn't have to go at them that way. i can go at them i think the way they are doing it, antitrust laws, saying comcast, he will have good evidence, comcast has violated antitrust monopoliestic -- neil: is that the impetus, a little thin-skinned and crazy? >> yeah. neil: these have been raised and conservatives alike about comcast, whether it sticks to its word, all that fair enough.

something like this, me thinks you're skin is a little too thin. >> here is the thing, if i'm hid of comcast, i'm worried about this. either way. if he comes after me on antitrust grounds he will screw up my business model. neil: we reported that whether you like him or dislike him, there is disproportionate, late night comics pile on against him. very few say something kind about him in humor, late-night, some of these venues. does that matter? >> i can understand why -- i known donald trump for a long time as you did. he is particularly thin-skinned no doubt about it. they do beat up on him constantly. neil: just ignore it. >> they go after his wife every day, you know. you know, listen there is a lot of vial stuff thrown at the obamas, including racial stuff, vial, okay? trump doesn't get the racial stuff but he does get as you know, like entire media establishment, it hates him.

they think he is a fraud. they think he won by russian influence. neil: whatever that, wouldn't ronald reagan practice be wise. don't make it seem like they're getting to you? we know in retrospect a lot of that was getting to ronald reagan he would famously say last time i checked, i am president they're not. >> he had great approval ratings. the other part with donald he is not particularly well-liked. his approval ratings given where the economy is right now, people should be in love with this guy and they're not for obviously reasons. he is not a well-liked guy. his demeanor turns off a lot of people. i don't care either way but i'm just telling you. neil: same with. >> you they always say about me. i don't care. hurts my feelings, all 1.1 of them. very well, where do i begin? neil: thank you very, very much. if the president, president barack obama's health care law now deemed essentially unconstitutional by a judge's

ruling what does that mean? so far today means a lot of health care, health care related stocks are selling off but is that jumping the gun? are republicans celebrating right now. they might want to wipe that smirk off their faces. we'll explain. real-time anal, you'll get clear, actionable alerts about potential investment opportunities in real time. fidelity. open an account today. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day.

in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets,

decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.

♪ neil: is obamacare on life-support? the news couldn't have been worse for former president saying he had wanted people to continue enrolling we would get over this hump. reality is, a judge shooting down the individual mandate, that is the requirement that you have to get health care, that has since gone by the wayside anyway. what happens if this gets appealed or sent all the way up to the supreme court? deirdre bolton with the very latest on -- >> neil, a wrinkle many didn't not need. on friday evening a judge ruled obamacare is unconstitutional.

the judge ruled the entire law should be struck down. health insurers, hospital stocks, we'll h we've been following all of them they're all down on the decision. this decision will be appealed. so it doesn't take effect immediately. and some traders are suggesting caution in regards to dumping those stocks just based on the headline. most gop lawmakers want to preserve coverage for preexisting conditions but they will oppose most or all of the law such as the requirement most people obtain health insurance, the so-called individual mandate. up clear how the party will accomplish both goals at once. congressman, michael burgess, he is a medical doctor, he told us about the feedback he is getting from his his his constituents. >> the complaint i hear it is too costly and complex so help with us the cost and complexity. nothing in the affordable care act did anything to help the

complexity. it made it worse. >> some democrats are mulling legal action to challenge the judge's decision. congress did not, as we know, pass substantive health care legislation when republicans controlled both houses. democrats taking control of the house next month. so the prospects for any legislative solutions look pretty dim. most agree next best steps on ruling will probably be based on legal action, neil, as you alluded to. supreme court possibility and not legislation. department of health and human services hhs putting out official statement saying it will continue to administer and enforce all aspects of the aca as it had done before the court issued that decision. so, for the moment, status quo, even if the future is very uncertain, neil. neil: deirdre, thank you, very, very much what happens if it gets kicked to the united states supreme court. fox news legal analyst what

happens now, mercedes if you had to take a shot at what the supreme court does if it handles this? >> biggest vulnerability of the decision the judge pretty much set aside doctrine of severability. everyone says the penalty was unconstitutional, that you remove that part of law. you remove it, don't apply it, it proceeds with the law intact with except for the impending provision. what happened in the past with scotus, when there is a cert you have to request permission to appear before the scotus, before the supreme court. and they will probably say to themselves, there has already been a change of law in 2017 penalties reduced to zero. you don't have a penalty. you don't have taxation. this issue whether or not it was unconstitutional asset forts in the 2012 ruling by justice roberts, well it is constitutional because there is

this taxation and congress has these broad powers, therefore it can proceed. you don't have that anymore. you have the provision removed as of 2017. now the judge said well this individual mandate, this penalty still makes it unconstitutional. i will toss it out, severability aside. scotus has the opportunity. if you look what they have done in the past whether or not to grant permission to have the cases heard before the court they look to see if there is some change in the law that now changes the application to a particular case. so it's ripe for scotus to step forward and say, the well the landscape of the law has changed. we want to take a second look at this case. neil: eric, in in the iaea vent they do, that millions gotten coverage under under the affordable care act could technically see that insurance go, right? they could but it is not completely ripe yet because sunday the judge issued another

order in which he scheduled the parties were to confer, come up with a schedule or calendar by the end of this week on how they're going to deal with some of the remaining issues. one of the remaining issues that the judge asked the parties to address that the judge deferred in this opinion is an injunction. this judge is not bashful. this judge already in the past issued injunctions against the obama-era transgender opinions. this judge has issued injunctions against parity for medical benefits for gay couples. i don't know this is ripe yet. this confusion could occur much earlier depending on how the judge handles that issue. neil: i argued republicans should hold back a little bit in their glee because the onus is on them, right? >> absolutely. as an employer, we have thousands of employees at our firm. we have to look at health care, such a significant issue and

most americans need it. they stay at jobs that they stay at. they leave jobs because the health benefits aren't sufficient. so it is such a critical issue to so many whether you're an employee, employer, it is such a critical issue frankly we're looking for a solution. for employers we're looking for solutions to retain the talent we need. right now it is going to be status quo. there will be applications that the judge's ruling doesn't apply yet, they will be appealed. there is 30-day window for cases to be appealed. there might be motions for reconsideration, a party that lost, stepped forward we need you to reconsider your ruling. we're talking months, years down the line this will be resolved one way or another. neil: eric, when i talk to most people about this subject, they don't get in the weeds certainly as much as you folks do about the legal i am implications. they are concerned about coverage for preexisting

conditions. most people can relate to that, fear of that, wonder about the decision leading to the end of that. what is the legal message here on that? >> sure. this might be a better be careful what you wish for because remember the name of the act is the patient protection and affordable care act. the judge threw out a whole wealth of things, including subsidies to the medicaids and the states for pharmaceutical coverage. other subsidies. coverage until 26. preexisting conditions. as mercedes pointed out that doesn't take effect right now. assuming a injunction isn't put in place that won't take effect now. the interesting thing before the judge issued this ruling, all of these plans already took into consideration the preexisting condition requirement that those be covered. and that is already built into the premium structure. in very interestingly when the mandate was presumed to go away because this penalty went away,

plans started to raise their premiums because healthy people were coming out. so the market is already factored this in. the market has found a level apparently where they're comfortable with preexisting conditions. but it is a mess but as mercedes pointed out, most likely could be years until that final issue is resolved unless congress steps in before then. neil: we shall see on that front. thank you very much. i do appreciate it. >> thanks, neil. neil: france survived another weekend of protests. a little more tepid. a little sigh of relief. despite all the snickering we have been having what is going on over there and government coming up with ways to pay for it, we're not loot better. we print a lot of money. we have a lot of debt. we have people who want to be president who are coming up with similar plans to pay off voters. i'll explain after this.

♪ neil: all right. protest as little calmer in france over the weaken particularly in paris but that does not mean that things emannuel macron done to calm the

storm have worked. many think he has not done enough. many want him to dial back the market reforms he calls them to make the government less of a player in french citizens lives. terry jeffries is here on this. where is this going? what is your sense, terry? >> in france? neil: yeah. >> i think they have a big problem. according to "the new york times," most people retire by 62. gone into retirement by 2030 only one worker for each person on retirement in france. that is simply unsustainable. literally the person gets up in the morning and goes to work to earn money to support himself and family is supporting some stranger they don't even know through the government. that is completely unsustainable. it is understandable that people in france are upset. neil: a lot of this was explainable and if emannuel macron explained it and he didn't. he didn't do, i don't know whether, i don't know whether french version of a ross perot

chart would be, illustrate this is not sustainable. he did a couple other things that really got to the core here, one of the countries which has the most expensive price for gasoline, hiking it all the more to pay for climate change manuevers and options that the government was considering without really explaining the need at least in his sense to do so, to the french people. there is a better way communicating this and he didn't do it. >> well you know talked about ecological transition. that is what he wanted by imposing this massive new gas tax on the french people who are already overtaxed and understandably this thing. that is elite lift point of view the environmentalists all across the globe have, they want to control people's lives, particularly when it comes to moving themselves in an automobile. the car, and driving yourself is considered to be a bad or evil thing. to me it is completely

understandable why people in france got upset because that is where macron went. even in other areas he is trying to do things to make france more of a free market economy again. neil: good luck with that. he already burned some bridges here. some of the reforms he has, which are quite commendable. idea of cradle kel to grave protections are not affordable w a aging population like our in the united states not sustainable either. now good luck getting anything like that through. >> right you. you say like the united states. you know a big issue in washington this week is going to be what they do with funding the last 25% of the federal government that isn't already funded for all of fiscal 2019. no matter what they do with that, neil, they're going to run up a deficit of more than a trillion dollars in the federal government this year. neil: that's right. >> according to the omb, to trump's white house, they will have to borrow another trillion

dollars somewhere just this year. so i think if we don't watch it, the united states is headed on the same trajectory that france is headed on. we don't want to go there. but the question is -- neil: i agree with you. it will be a preview of coming attractions. we shouldn't be so haughty or arrogant about it. terry, thank you very much. good catching up with you. >> thank you, neil. neil: is this a preview of coming attractions. mattie duppler, that is my worry. a pox on both party's houses, reality both parties are very good making promises very bad explaining basic math. the basic math doesn't allow for those promises right? >> get rid after party problem. it's a politician problem. we know with democrats they have decided their winning coalition strategy in order to be electorally successful, promise free stuff. we always think this about democrats. democrats are disposing of the stuff. they're not saying free college

anymore, free welfare, they want a massive transfer of wealth in order for americans to go to the polls for democrats. the conservative argument of pro-growth reform is starting to make inroads. democrats are starting to talk like republicans in that way, families do better when they have their own money to control their own lives than the government. neil: not all of them. leading candidates considering presidential run, cory booker, kamala harris, contemplating $500 a month to folks. >> exactly. neil: a matter of saying, you're going to be very productive with this money. we will encourage you to be very productive with this money. but where does it end? >> the problem is, democrats get the means all wrong. they might have the ends right but the means are wrong. they of course want government to intervene and redistribute the wealth in order to accomplish exactly what conservatives have been saying we want to do with regulatory

reform, tax reform, give americans more of their own money. when you have the government intervene to be the intermediary that makes it more costly. democrats are allowing to middle and average americans keep their money, not supporting tax reformulas year. this gave $2,000 back to the typical american family, due to decreasing of tax rates, doubling of the standard deduction. other things like increasing child tax credit. that happened in the tax cut and jobs act even though democrats refused to support the law. this move to the left of a group of progress serves running for president trying to essentially outcompete with each other how much they promise to the american people without having a backstop or explanation where the money comes from. neil: they're overseeing a trillion dollar deficit when they had a run at table maybe for foreseeable future. i like to give benefit of the

doubt to american people, you explain what is going on, this is not sustainable, a woman like equal sacrifice by all to address that. >> right. neil: no one does that. because it hell to pay on politician who even thinks about it. >> let's see over the next couple months what happens. this coming spring we'll have another debt limit fight which will put the spector of spending right back in the limelight. this will be at a time that we've got dozens of democrats running for president trying to say they have plans that will increase wealth for the average american. eventually one of those democrats will turn to their competitor say, listen you have to explain how you will pay for this. i think that having a number of democrats -- neil: they increase taxes on wealthy. >> increase taxes on wealthy. will have to go back on prosperity we're experiencing now. that will be a more difficult sell to make. neil: you talk about increasing taxes that will not be enough to pay for everything they want to do. >> not even close. neil: not even close. mattie, thank you very much. what a crazy world we live in here. we're at session lows in the market here. a lot of it again on some

economic numbers we've been telling you about that are not that great. sentiment numbers. building sentiment numbers, consumer shopping numbers, and "usa today poll" that said americans looking forward to the holidays they're not looking forward to 2019 when the bills come due. there is health care related stocks, humana, centene, effect after judge that shade obama care as we know it is constitutionally dead. more after this.

.. a february to remember... ...starts with a december to remember at the lexus december to remember sales event. lease the 2019 nx 300

for $319 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

neil: all right, we are in and out or near lows the dow about 267-point by point now. a positive spin right now less than two weeks to do so it has an ample ground to make up with roughly 1213% loss. we are down in excess of 3.5% on the year for the dow jones industrial, something like that. have to make a considerable ground. a lot of people focus on the fact if you include dividends with a lot of s&p 500 companies afforded $21 billion for through november, more than repaid all blaster which included the month of december which was a record year we're essentially flat on the year, but this would be the first negative year we've seen since 2008. we're following that very

closely. so that is weighing on the market dear. concern about the federal reserve meeting this week as well. a number of people including billionaire investor who's been saying along with the former fatah member that now would not be a good time to even entertain raising rates, and that things are in a little bit of a precipice here, but now is not the time to do that. add that to what is happening on the health care front with a lot of health care related issues spirit stung by the judge's ruling last week in texas that could be echoed all the way up to the supreme court that the obamacare mandate that you have to get insurance, which has since been dispensed with is reason enough to make the law itself unconstitutional and maybe health care is all for millions of americans certifying in the balance here. a lot of health care related issues. health care, food not coming humana down anywhere from 2% to

9%. look at the reading on all this with edward lawrence, federal reserve will probably have to factor all this and peered right, edward? >> including the global possible slowdown. economies outside the united states are slowing down also weighing on the market. likely the federal reserve will increase rates later on this week. it's also likely we'll see more more outrage from president donald trump over the rate hike. in fact today he treated out to the federal reserve saying it is incredible with a very strong dollar and virtually no inflation the out side were blowing up around us, paris is burning in china way down the fittest can do during yet another interest rate hike take the victory. some economic advisers to the president like peter navarro to agree with the president that it's time to pause on this. others say the federal reserve needs to be the independent voice for all of this. the chairman of the president's economic advisory council kevin

hastert says he recognizes the independence of the federal reserve that the markets have taken a wild ride. today you mentioned meaning to make up some ground if we enter positive territory for the year. still, better than markets around the world. china, european union. those are not rolling as fast as the u.s. is growing and the president's economic advisers pointed to strong growth in the strong fundamentals. on the advice of the president you're likely to hear federal reserve's basically ignore that. the federal reserve is however changing his tone a little bit. chairman jerome powell has come out and said we are near the neutral rate here is sort of a shift they are signaling possibly next year we could see a pause in rate even though some would like to see if it looks like there could be a pause next year. we are very close to the neutral rate even with the nation around their target to and still likely to have a rate hike again this week and possibly three more next year and 29 team.

just don't know where it's going to be spaced out. he'll peered neil: edward, thank you for a match. edward lawrence. obviously americans getting a little concerned right now. some of them downright alarmed. kristina partisnevelos with more and with recent recent surveys are saying. >> hey, neil. you're absolutely right. a new poll from "the wall street journal" combined with the nbc are seeing roughly one third of americans right now believe the economy will get worse in 2019. i called about 900 people for this poll. that is the lowest level of confidence right now in the last five years. if you look optimistically, 28% believe it will improve. the graph you see on your screen right now from a topline and yellow pretty much unsure. the important part there is the crossover come in the fact that more people believe the economy will get worse in 2019. split pretty much among the party lines. republicans are more like 48%

improvement common that's pretty much the opposite when it comes to democrats and we also have another poll coming from reuters. reuters actually interviewed economists. they got questions from economists and these are 100 economists within the next two years they believe there is a 40% chance of a recession reason being global slowdown and flattening of the u.s. yield curve you see in the tenure versus the two year falling in contract in below 10 basis points. we haven't seen that since the recession. however, that contradicts the white house in either kevin hassett who spoke earlier today. let's listen in. >> the u.s. economy is booming. you know, we got data on friday to jack up our growth estimate for fourth-quarter of away about 3%. the probability of the next 12 months is about zero. that's the right read given the amount of momentum we have in the economy.

>> just go back to the reuters poll really quickly, you consent as there will be a rate hike this week. two more for 2019. however, if you look at the fed fund futures, and they are pricing in one rate hike for 2019. tree into pristina, thank you very, very much. contracting growth, in other words the economy shrinking. you would have to get that together fairly rapidly in order to see a recession materialize in 2019 that has been done and sometimes you don't know it until after the fact. market watchers greg and larry childers. what are the odds of an imminent recession in your eyes? >> in my eyes they're actually fairly low. i know i'm going against the grain but when i look at credit read are not nearly as wide as they typically are. profits, corporate profits and growth, gdp still here and i think we'll see it in 2019.

it doesn't necessarily translate to higher stock prices, but i do believe we are pretty far from recession. also yield curve. is it getting close to be averted? but the real rates are awfully low and it makes a big difference when you talk about inversion when real rates are almost negative compared to what her 3%. i think the odds recession are fairly low for 2019. neil: those who might not be familiar with short-term interest rate eclipse those longer-term interest rates. we are close but not there yet. in the middle of all this uncertainty comes the uncertainty of whether we see a government shut down from a partial one this friday. we are learning right now the white house is so far not considering a one and two week resolution, what's known as a cr to keep the government might time. he's playing hardball. what do you think? >> i think we're going to get one, neil. democrats are basically sticking with the strategy of blaming

him. the longer you wait the longer get a new house in the new house is going to be much more liberal. try that to democrats perfectly content to wait. the president wants to impress his date that he cares about border security, but this is one where both sides are so doug and i will have to shut down. neil: the question now becomes how long of one. there's a partial nature, greg, and the impact of entitlement programs, social security programs that would be frozen or delayed. it won't have quite the same impact. >> no. because of that i think it could last for a while. two, three, four weeks. i don't see it as having a big impact on the market. jay powell's press conference in a couple days is more important in the shutdown but it's not a positive story. neil: already, larry, what they does drag on for a few weeks. because this would not be among the more severe shutdown i may

be because americans have sadly gotten used to this sort of thing that the impact won't need a dramatic. what do you think? >> i agree with greg on this one. i think it's just one more thing people are overlooking. people are more interested in growth and growth prospects. what the fed is going to do, inflation expectations, trade. unless china and the u.s. see i do live pretty soon released in 2019, were in big trouble. a government shutdown is on the back page of the paper. >> greg, there's talk that maybe the federal reserve not raise rates this week. stanley druck miller argument that this is not the time to make a major policy error is thinking it would be if they did such a thing this week. i could flip it around and say they don't hike, wouldn't the market three alarm into that? >> ackermann they could save

what does the fed know. there's been two really important errors by president trump. number one, he fired the most dovish. i think he regrets firing janet yellen. the monkey hackers and dodgers decided to not raising rates the more they're implied to do it just to show that they are independent. i think you should back out and leave the issue alone. neil: good luck on not. larry, presidents are entitled to their point of view. he's not the first one to express it. he's the first to express it so publicly. what would be the fact if we do get a height as largely expected this week? >> well, the fed is in a winless situation. i think there is a chance of a short-term rally but right back to where we were because like you said what are they doing? is it status quo? i think that's really bad for the market because there's an some interesting wordage that needs to change especially inflation expectations.

project team 10 year inflation 1.5%. the fed has to come you know, recognize that and change expectations and all the wording about further gradual hikes announced where its going to get interesting. tough situation for them. tree into gentlemen, thank you very much. in the meantime come you never notice the pendulum swinging on the subject or goldman sachs saying the odds of a recession for the very least a slowdown are rising dramatically. someone like stanley druck miller, one of the best money managers on the planet over many decades saying i wouldn't overplay my hand. i would go slow here. this federal reserve were if it does and if it doesn't. it's like you're doing the president's bidding, but it

could also be interpreted as a sign that you see things looking very, very dicey. there's no way these guys can win, which means come wednesday issued the interest in. stay with us. i'm snow. and just like you, the further into winter we go, the heavier i get. and while your pants struggle to support the heavier you, your roof struggles to support the heavier me. [laughter] whoo. [crash] and your cut-rate insurance might not pay for this. so get allstate, you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. mayhem is everywhere. so get an allstate agent. are you in good hands?

♪ there's no place likargh!e ♪ i'm trying... ♪

yippiekiyay. ♪ mom. ♪

neil: already coming here is how you know a government shutdown is looking more and more likely. the president not entertaining any solution to avoid not an democrats aren't giving him any ground to prevent that resolution, temporary one it would be a one or two week extension to keep the government might gone. blake burman has more on this from the white house. what are we talking about here? >> business folks who are involved at the planning process in the meeting ongoing here at the white house or close to the white house as well. president trump at this point is not inclined to potentially go with a one week or two week continuing resolution, which essentially have punted this whole issue another week or two weeks when you look at the calendar, potentially one reason why if this were to only be a one week stopgap going in forward i would put you between christmas and new year's. two weeks at the beginning of the new congress with a whole different dynamic on capitol

hill without peer double different potential matrix as well as the one to two week doesn't necessarily from a calendar and political thinking makes sense and i'm told the president at this point does not inclined to go go potentially as they go potentially if they can't hash out a deal with either one or two weeks somewhat they were congress is fast -- is punting, but in this case i'm told the president not necessarily wants to go along with that. of course one of the other big issues there remains outstanding is the issue of money for a border wall versus border security. the president wants $5 billion for a border wall. democrats willing to give much less than now for what they call border security and the president took note on twitter earlier today. anytime you hear democrats say new can of could order security, write them off as another politician following the party line. time for us to save billions of dollars a year and have at the same time far greater safety and control.

the white house still continuing to say today that a government shutdown is indeed a possibility. mercedes schlock, director of strategic communication. >> the president has a mention last week was shut down the government to increase funding for border security. the key here is we are going to see what deal the senate brings up and looking at those details will basically make a determination which direction we're going to go. >> a couple things to note if there is a partial government shutdown that would not impact the entire federal government but would impact about 25%. still a pretty big number especially going into the holiday season and as it relates to the possibility that maybe they would hunt this a couple weeks, they've actually already done that. the spending deadline was a couple weeks ago, but as you know there was the death of the 41st president george h.w. bush at that time lawmakers on capitol hill decided to give a couple week extension and that

is why this deadline is now friday. neil: blake, thank you very much. blake burman at the white house. maybe the military funds this whole thing up a wall. >> at the president has the military build this wall or use a sponge in the military, the mods do that because there's nothing more important than the sovereignty of our country. neil: already, so the military does it. former deputy assistant to the secretary of defense, jim mattis, amber smith. can they do that, amber? >> well, repurpose and previously reallocated funds from a government budget has happened before. it's not unprecedented if it actually happens quite frequently it's just approved by congress. what we saw from the president's tweet earlier last week is that it was an idea he throughout their saying if congress doesn't want to negotiate with me i'm going to find an out-of-the-way box to solve this problem. building the wall was president

trump's number one campaign promise to the american people and people voted for him on that issue. i think what he wants to do if he wants to find a way to make it happen with congress walking him every single step of the way. he's going to find another way. the administration is looking into legalities now in terms of ways they can actually make this happen, but right now it's just an idea there hasn't been any sort of formal policy proposal just yet, but i think if things are okay legally maybe they will see in the future they can move forward with that. neil: all right, now i don't know the legalities with that and so i've heard from people saying you can't do that another say you can do at issue is reverberating already design. but we jim not us go along with that? >> well, right now i think what you -- the same people who said

it was illegal to send troops to the border to help with the customs of order patrol in the wake of the caravan coming out, you know from you know, the troops have been sent to the border under president bush, president obama so it really is a polarizing issue. neil: there is a difference or not. if the president got his wish and have all $25 billion put aside, the cost of such a wall, such a border would be very different. >> while i think probably the biggest problem is first of all this is being looked at in a national security -- during national security lines. this isn't just an immigration issue. this is a national security issue and as commander-in-chief his number one job is to protect the american people and if that means moving the military to build a structure to protect the american people, that's the way he will pursue this. where this gets a little bit tricky if the military is

already spread extremely thin with all the conflicts we are involved in around the globe. so if you're going to take a significant chunk of the military, provide them with a new mission on the southern border, much larger than what were seeing in terms of numbers today, then you're going to have to take them and remove them from a different part of the world that they are already obligated and have a mission going on there. that is the number one thing in terms of how are you actually going to reshuffle where troops are, their equipment, their deployment schedules, all of that doesn't just happen overnight and that logistically is a major, major challenge. so that is going to be the second thing aside from the defense budget and funding and legality in terms of congress is going to be what part of the world are we going to be pulling troops from or activating reserve and guard troops to move into the border. neil: all right, thank you very

much. amber smith, jim mattis the defense secretary of the united state. you know, much has been said in this market about the short-term conservative of the government shut down in the longer concerns about, well, a recession. there is also played today in weighing on stocks right now. the dow was down 286-point. more after this. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪

>> welcome back to cavuto coast to coast paradigm gerri willis on the floor of new york stock exchange. madison square garden up 3% right now. bad news james dolan told espn he would not rule out selling annex at the right offer came along. the chairman they know it is comfortable with the bona fide offer, but the number he's hearing $5 billion for the stock of 24 today. 5 billion would be rich indeed the houston rockets sold in 2017 for $2.2 billion for the golden

state warriors were a real bargain at 450 million in 2010. it's been 45 years as the knicks won a championship and it's been since 2012 cents they were in the playoffs. also owning the new york rangers and radio city music hall. we'll have to wait and see what happens with this one. back to you. neil: you know, the rockets could probably be -- i'm just thinking out loud. thank you very much, jerry. google is trying not to amazon not exactly, but it's interesting around some real estate deals. hillary bond with more on that. >> hey, neil. this is google second million dollars expansion just this year. google announcing a $1 billion investment in their new new york city campus near the hudson river. the cfo says the investment fits in their plan to expand their footprint in the u.s.a. and we will have the capacity to more

than double the number in new york over the next 10 years. our investment in new york is a huge part of our commitment to grow and invest in u.s. facilities offices and jobs in fact we are growing outside the bay area than what's in it at $.7 million campus will include two buildings and a separate office space in a different domain. the campus will be the main hub for new york raise global business organization. with the new plans google doubled their 7000 strong employee workforce in new york city and they plan to move into these new buildings in 2020. neil: hillary, thank you very, very much. just back from across the pond come ashley webster with what is going on. it seems like every country you were reporting on has serious problems. charlie: coincidence, i don't think so. nothing has changed except we now know theresa may will finally bring her deal to a vote in parliament on the lake at january 14th. the problem is no one likes it.

even people in their own parties on what happens with the scrambling going on, if possible no deal which the boris johnsons would love. why should we pay more of this money? neil: what would be the solid if they did that? >> there are all sorts of predictions. there would be planes grounded, food shortages, medical shortages and others who say wait a minute there's fear mongering. we can make arrangements. we can do deals. who knows maybe the u.s. will come in. president trump said would love to do deals. i think there'll be some short-term economic pain either way. neil: you're doing a stellar job might i point out. you know, they look at the problems that france was having in italy and germany slowing down and they figured that's not a club we want to be in. >> they didn't want to be in the single currency they never were. they want the pound.

the french just cannot afford their welfare programs. a manual micron comes in with some programs and eventually caved in by the way throw some carbon tax in. i hate to tell you this, the fourth-largest output in the world in who's going to backstop all of this? the german taxpayers, german householders. do you think the backstop and guarantee that? no. i've said this before the cracks in the e.u. we know that they are getting wider before our eyes. neil: what is -- if this all goes away they can travel freely among all the con and members. they love that. he used to be a big deal. >> it was a big deal. all the different currencies, all about. now it's all gone away. the beauty being i can live in poland but if i want to go to france i can just move and work and everything is free and easy. the problem is to have 27 governments and think about 27 governments trying to get all

their ducks in a row and agree with brussels. we called them faceless bureaucrat. they yield a lot of power and there's a lot of resentment of adam rightly so. neil: would they take it out? how would they punish? >> they have absolutely no desire to make this easy at all. i saw a sign. you see the brexit signs suddenly appearing in paris. there is a very real fear in brussels that this whole thing is pulling apart. they are going to make this as hard as they can. if they were decent guys they would love the u.k. because that means even more trade between camino, the european continent in the u.k. but they don't think that way. neil: they do well when they trade with each other whether they're part of the same club or not. >> they do, but what influence does the e.u. have. they don't like anything whether its customs, trade wars, free movement of people. all of that they want to tell you what to do.

if you stand up and say i don't want any of that data want to know you. neil: is it weird when you go back? >> it is a little. the more things change the more they stay the same. i did notice american influence over there which is interesting. i saw large groups of protesters that the leaves means leave people, anti-europe shouted at the local teeth come in to bbc news, fake news, fake news. and i saw a young man taken away by police and the media area. he had a trump 2020 t-shirt on. neil: are you sure that wasn't burning? >> as someone said, and donald trump to come in and say right, this is wrong. this is right. this is what we're going to do. but with that. neil: is not boris johnson? >> boris doesn't have a lot of friends in parliament.

out in the hinterlands they like him. neil: albright. as not to be just the hinterlands for several months you. can you or much good could the new again. we are following the doubt in and out of the session lows. the short-term concern is the government shutdowns for the longer-term concern is all of a sudden we could be entering a slowdown or worse or goldman sachs indicating not. the big money guys saying if he had the factories there shouldn't be looking to raise interest rates now is not the time into that confusing of this base fell. more after this

to albright, we are at the lowest right now. a lot of this is the so-called smart money. it's in the eye of the beholder a few see someone as a gazillion air and you're worried about interest rates going up in an environment like that. when it's someone like druckenmiller are some of the others warning about whether it's wise to think about raising

rates when you combine that with a potential government shut down later in the way, that might or might not drag on for a while and then the concern of goldman sachs and others have raised about potential for a slowdown and not an outright recession. never mind many of those same firms have been wrong about the run-up we have seen. add it all up and there's concern sending docks down about 356 points as we speak. dennis gartman, excellent market read. i should've been in the smart money crowd. dennis, what are you seeing now that the markets have been the past sort of swept off. what are they not sleeping off now? >> what they're not bluffing off is the fact of the site, not that they're tightening monetary policy with raising interest rates, whether they do or do not raise the overnight fed funds rate on when he is inconsequential. what people are not paying attention to what they need to pay attention to is the fed through the adjusted monetary base without getting esoteric, that is the fed holdings with

securities have been rolling off now for three years. you had an increase in the fed holdings from 2008 until 2015. you needed that to sponsor both robbers stop prices in a stronger economy. now you have a lessening of the fuel supply. the economy is doing quite well but with a lessening of the fuel supply, one of the two has to follow the follows in the stock market. i trade only for my own account to millions of my own money but i have been short in this morning i got shorter when the dow got back to unchanged and i have no intention of changing a position at this point. neil: that's interesting you're betting the market will go down. but the tenure noted around to .87%, in a five-year, 2.71% for the two year at 2.71% in bank lending rates at around 2.5%, that is as tight as a tick.

>> well, let's put it into proper context. i've been in this business since 1972 because i can remember when the rate was consistently above 20% and my own first mortgage well above 10%. neil: i thought i was the only one who bragged about that. >> i do remember when the long bond was at 814 and a quarter coupon and you couldn't give it away. the fact we raise the overnight fed funds rate to where we have to mean it's really not -- neil: i guess what i'm saying is that normally perils of it all holds this lowdown at a minimum maybe something worse. what do you say? >> i think by the first quarter of next year we will find the economy has slowed at least for one quarter. maybe we'll have two quarters. we're going to have a recession. long overdue. will be anywhere near as serious as the winter and 2007, 2008, 2009? no it will not. we won't have the same bubbles

in our extensions. if the fed tightening of policy allowed the monetary base to roll off? yes and i both built for the economy going forward. neil: that recession would just add to contracting quarters in a row. do you see a good possibility that next year? >> i think you'll get at least one. you might well get to. they didn't understand we were in recession in 2007. they didn't announce it until 2009 and didn't know what rod recession until 2010. they are very slow to make that decision. we have a quarter at least a lesser gdp growth almost certainly. neil: they always realize the fact, poor george bush senior and were coming out of the recession at that time in 92 is too little too late to help in the election. dennis, we'll see what happens. thank you very much, my friend. >> thank you, neil for having me on. always my pleasure.

neil: he's very modest but he is an uncanny ability to read turns and very whether this is significant is the newest guest are down 333-point. those that would be vulnerable to a trade deal that materializes are taken on the chin, and then the issue of johnson & johnson. they cannot get out of its own way. when each and every issue and right on looking at 28 of the dow 30 in opposition can't find the half-full glass of the story, then they keep getting kicked in the legs. more after this. place, the xfinity xfi gateway.

and it's strengthened by xfi pods, which plug in to extend the wifi even farther, past anything that stands in its way. ...well almost anything. leave no room behind with xfi pods. simple. easy. awesome. click or visit a retail store today.

neil: all right, judge effectively shoots down the individual mandate for obamacare, the affordable care act. if you think about it, congress is already taking care of the issue regardless. if the health care laws we know it printed all the way up to the supreme court and then what happens then. judge andrew napolitano and maybe be careful what you wish for. good to see you. >> meal, good to see you. i agree with you and to be careful what you wish for. republicans tried many times to undo obamacare legislatively.

the president went on this campaign but they haven't done anything in the first two years when the republicans hold both houses of congress. now they are confronted with an unlikely demise even the though parts of it are very popular, particularly preexisting injury. nowhere does the money come from to cover preexisting injuries? from the enormous pool of money paid in premiums by every human in the united states pursuant to the individual mandate. get rid of the individual mandate. that pool shrinks. they can't possibly cover preexisting injuries. were they going to get the money from? from the government. this is two steps closer to bernie sanders dream of universal coverage paid for by tax dollars that might happen under the most fierce opponent of the in the modern era, donald trump. i don't know how they can get themselves out of this. neil: i was talking to a cardiologist on this issue who

said you have to realize in the end what has happened here is that society is never going to back away or in some of government run health care. that is not a debate here. do you buy that? >> i'm sorry to say that i agree with them. neil: he wasn't a fan of that. >> is still a form of socialized medicine. look at people escaping the medical clutches of the national health services in great britain and even in canada where you wait forever for procedures that we can get it done the next day here. but, bernie sanders in these proposals seem more and more mainstream the more we hear them. they don't offend and frighten the way they used to. they should terrify because of what it will do to the quality of medical care, because of what it will do to your choices, to your taxes, but they don't offend and terrify any more. we talk about it, you and i and

a lot of people today are discussing it openly as if this is a legitimate alternative. neil: the argument also comes at a time when people now look at everett gals on the russian roulette of going through life without getting a disease or previous condition you know the drill here in the sentiment even in the public has changed. what do you think about? this is a dicey issue for republicans. >> this is where democrats in my view have been disingenuous. the ride is something that comes from your humanity. choose it and what you wish, say what you think, publish what you say. health care is not a right. it's a good good at something you purchase like a gym membership. like an insurance policy. when they persuade the american public that somehow health care is a right, then it must be the government's obligation to provide it. that is in hideous baby step i babysat plan of the democrats to bring us to this type of a system. neil: which is what barack obama

was founded so confident in the middle of the enrollment process >> religions are confronted with what parts do we keep, what parts do we get rid of and how do we finance what we keep? neil: what is your sense right now switching gears to be don't mind i'm sure my producers will get annoyed, but i was curious to get your take on a government shutdown and if it happens later this week, the president doesn't want the continued resolution. he doesn't want a way to keep the lights on a couple more weeks and it's not such a big deal. >> are two thoughts on that. political and ideological. political as democrats will make it look as if it's the presidents fault and i have a famous quote of him saying i'm prepared to shut the government down if you don't give me the wall. the president in my view shouldn't cause the government to rise or fall over a wall. there's a lot of other things the government does. to libertarian, shut it down to the basics keep working. we'll save a few bucks.

they save money when it's closed. neil: that's an interesting view. i was her my people the time we had our credit rating lowered we were not in a shot down. the gains in the kabuki theater, that prompted that lowering the aaa rating. >> the white house just announced presidents not going to go for another continuing resolution. what does that mean? they'll be meeting on new year's eve? melania wants me at a party. [laughter] neil: judge, always a pleasure my friend. we will be watching this very carefully. friday is the deadline for that to happen. to the judge's point is made that clear that it is inserted namby-pamby resolution the look of the lights on in a week or two because i'll have to revisit all of this in short order. it is still early in the new congress to deal with that if it doesn't give the existing one. the president might feel from their point of view no rush.

meanwhile, down 362 points. a little more after this. 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.

but when i started seeing things, i didn't know what was happening... so i kept it in. he started believing things that weren't true. i knew something was wrong... but i didn't say a word. during the course of their disease around 50% of people with parkinson's may experience hallucinations or delusions. but now, doctors are prescribing nuplazid. the only fda approved medicine... proven to significantly reduce

hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the most common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. we spoke up and it made all the difference. ask your parkinson's specialist about nuplazid. neil: all right the possibility of big government. hard to make that leap year, but managing editor kitty is that those. what's going on? >> i think what were seeing right now, ups and downs are not an abnormal calm appeared people tend to freak out when they need to pump the brakes a little bit. if you look at the big transits

always upward and onward. it's one of you fine. just calm down. it's only monday. it's going to be fine. neil: you know, don't put a nail in the affordable care act coffin here for the fact of the matter could be is known as jealousy is millions of people, so when away, big government is still going to be a victory >> it is so hard when you take the steps in that direction of government control it is so hard to take steps back from where you were. people get used to assuming the government will do things for them. neil: absolutely. >> neil, i had plenty of my friend look at health insurance option, say, why is healthy 30-year-old male, cheapest i can find $900 a month with a 7,000-dollars deductible?

it is not feasible. it seems like every option stinks. neil: one is option by tough republicans, the dole is over. the millions are on your own, go back in the open market, see what you can do. that will not win the day here. >> you have a lot of these representatives and senators look at this, they always keep in mind how they vote, what will get them reelected. what will keep them popular. more often or not it is easier to go with the flow on something like this, find the middle ground still progressing towards full government control on something like health care that again will not make anything better. i just don't think anyone came for war with an idea good enough, rally people who might want to vote for re-election to come forward with that. neil: that is exactly right. should worry you. i have agreed what you outlined there. katy, thank you very much. have a merry christmas.

>> you too. neil: charlie gas not so good a day on wall and broad. what is going on here. >> don't panic. one man's opinion. jeffrey gundlach, a bond maven, very good at the bond market came out and said everything is negative. bond yields will spike. there will be a tariff war. s&p will keep going down. he is saying we're in a bear market. it is not going to end. i've been saying this for a while. you can see signs we're entering a bear market. i would be real clear today the puke that we're seeing right now is generated from one guy, he is an important guy, jeff gundlach, look it up, doubletree, smart guy when it comes to bonds, good market prognosticator. he is looking everything through glass half filled or as opposed to ha empty or half empty as opposed to glass half filled. i always get that wrong. he caused the market to puke.

we are down over 300 points. we may go lower. neil: what fueled that prior to that, stan drunkenmiller, in the "wall street journal" not a time to keep hiking rates. a guy like that saying something like that, you have to wonder is the fed risking making a bad situation worse? >> that is a good point. kevin warsh former fed governor on the editorial should give us pause. he is not a hawk. he wanted higher rates sooner as a matter of fact what the fed did. the problem with that column pointing out simply the fed missed the rate window. it raised rates too late in the economic cycle. now it is raising them, including unwinding its balance sheet raising short-term rates, selling bonds on its balance sheet bought during the financial crisis at the wrong time. they're saying we're getting a double-whammy. that is what you have here. kevin warsh. stan drunken miller, jeff

gundlach, just one man's opinion, that we're entering a tough time. the economy is slowing down. the tax cuts are done. they didn't have the bang for the back, lasting bang for the buck we thought they would. plus you have an issue where you have potential trade war, throw that all together, and you got some nasty markets here, neil. neil: you think about it, the trade war, whether we come to that or not, resolve it or not, the underlying global economy is slowing down, particularly china, that would be a kick in the pants? just as we score a trade deal they're, you know, trying to just evaporating? >> what type of trade deal are we scoring with them? is it anything much better than we have now? listen, there is a lot to worry about here. but i would just say you can look at the glass half full, half empty. neil: absolutely. >> just let this play for a little bit. don't do anything crazy. neil: i always said, a lot of it half glass in your approach to life. >> that's me.

usually the glass is full with vodka in it. just so you know. neil: not even a glass. thank you very much, my friend. connell mcshane in for charles payne. this market took course of its own, bud. connell: i'm connell mcshane in for charles this week. say let's get through the next few days. the old santa claus rally could be around the corner in. that is the glass half full view. we'll talk about coming up. with less than five days to go before the government would shut down. the white house holding firm on the border wall. we have new reporting on that subject from our own blake burman. reaction from