we can confirm. these are the correct numbers. susan: verify. let's see what tomorrow brings. there's always a last hour of trade, kind of like a basketball game. there's always a score at the end of the game that counts, right? that does it for us. "bulls & bears" starts right now. david: take a look at this, markets making a huge comeback in the final hours of trading, jumping more than 870 points from the lows this afternoon. the largest one-day point drop to end in positive territory in history. hang on to your hats. this is "bulls & bears." i'm david asman. joining me, danielle demartino booth, rick unger, i can only take one unger at a time. all major averages closing in the green with the dow adding 260 points to yesterday's 1,000 point rally. dramatic volatility day to day, hour by hour, really. what is going on with these

markets, folks? gary? >> i'm sorry. you are going right to me. well, i tell you, david, this is the craziest -- i have been in the market for 30 odd years. this is the craziest market i have ever been in. there's two ways to go about it. either you're a very short-term trader, like sophisticated hedge fund which by the way, are still trailing the s&p this year, or you are a long-term investor. i will assume that most everyone out there falls into the latter category, so my advice is very simple. turn the page, the business page, when you get it, right to the sports section and ignore everything that's going on. there's just no way to time this market. if you like on the dip, if you have funds and want to buy more of the stocks you like, that's great. otherwise, ignore all this. it's just noise. >> well, the trouble is saying ignore the markets when it has

this kind of volatility is like going on a diet and saying just eat less. we all know we should do it, but it's so hard to do. what you should do is on your retirement funds, simply continue to invest as you always have done, make those quarterly payments or annual payments, and save your emotions for the rest of your portfolio. what we're seeing unfolding here is the conflict between a good economy, very good economy, and a huge uncertainty about trade and whether the fed will crush prosperity because it thinks prosperity is bad and causes inflation. >> you guys are making it harder because you both make great points. i'm going with my cousin gary b. unger because his advice is right. david: gary's going on an unger strike. >> oh! >> i know a lot of people who pretend they can time the market. nonsense. you can't time the market. either be long-term or short-term. i'm a long-term guy. i just forget about it. i know it's coming back. it always does. don't get into this whole thing

of trying to time it. >> you know, i'm going to have to chime in. i think one of the most important articles the "washington journa "wall street journal" put out said that 85% is one shape or form machine or passive investing. investors have to keep that in mind, especially small investors, that it is not necessarily emotions whipsawing the markets, but rather code and algorithm and fast machine trading and momentum that are piling in and piling out of this market. these are very treacherous waters. i have been around markets for 30 years now and i have never seen volatility of this magnitude. unfortunately, i don't like to see up days of this magnitude or of yesterday's magnitude as much as i don't like to see down days when we are down 500 or 600 points. neither of them necessarily help investors sleep at night. >> we see artificial intelligence becoming artificial stupidity.

in that case, all you can do is stick to your plan. if you are emotional, don't open your mail or go online. but again, be divided into two, your retirement funds, just ride the wave, apply your emotions, your inner buffett, to the rest of your portfolio but leave your retirement money alone. david: you really believe the machines have a lot to do with what went on today, with the volatility today? >> well, algorithms can't predict the future. you saw graphically that 20 years ago, billions of dollars, nobel prize winners and nearly did in wall street, 1997-98, the fed intervened. algorithms are great except they can't predict the future and they can't predict particular events, especially economy good, good for markets, profits good, good for the market, but going to have a trade war? well, we had a "journal" editorial today.

we're not fulfilling our part of nafta number 2. >> i want to put it out there, the beauty of this, though, is that i think there's going to be at the end of whatever this turmoil is, whether it's in 2019 or 2020, whatever the end of this turmoil is i think will result in the readvent, the renaissance of active managers and the admission that machines shouldn't be doing all of the trading on our behalf and there is indeed a place for fundamental analysis. >> machines also play a part when the market goes up and should we be surprised it's this volatile when we had this entire year up until this venture when the market was remarkably stable? was it maybe just due? >> i'm going to come to the defense of the algorithms. people seem to think it's something out of "the terminator" where the machines have taken over. i use algorithms for my trading, but all algorithms are built on

human input. in fact, most algorithms are reactive to what the market's doing, so the real people who are driving the market are the fundamental traders, the ones with human emotions. they buy a big chunk of ibm, for example, it's the algorithms that react to that. there's nothing wrong with that. warren buffett reacts to market events just like a machine would. i do want to stress one point, though, that steve made. he said oh, it's like saying to people just eat less. i will agree with that in some regard, in fact, probably 100% but what you have to do is take days like we had the day before christmas when we were down 600 points, flip it around and say my gosh, stocks are on sale now. i know even that's easy to say. but you have to do that, and put yourself in the mentality that okay, amazon is now down 20%, 25%, maybe i can pick up more. that makes a little bit easier

the kind of tackle -- >> with this kind of market, maybe we should change the word algorithms to algae rhythms and put them in their proper place. >> but why are they bad? why is that any different than warren buffett using his intelligence to buy and sell? why is the timing short-term better than warren buffett's long term? because that's what it gets down to, the knock on these algorithms which i have always despised. >> but in terms of investing, if you want to be an index investor, that's fine, especially when you have virtually no fees today, just ride the market and the market, as rick says, will always come to your rescue in this country. david: we talked a little bit about the fed. i hesitate to do so because i get so tired of talking about those guys, but there is a possibility that president trump is going to be meeting with mr. powell, the fed chair that he's had so much to say. any optimism or pessimism about that kind of a meeting? >> look, i will chime in here as the only person who used to work

at the fed. i think it's more than past time, more than past due that the two gentlemen sit down together behind closed doors, no media, and just have a simple meeting of the minds. they are both extremely plain-spoken individuals. they both actually have the same kind of background. they understand markets. they understand the way interest rates work. they both have payrolls to deal with in their lives. david: you wouldn't know it from the way they're talking about each other now. >> well, only one of them. >> what i'm saying, it's time for them to get together without the media as a third party. >> that's fine to get together, but you have a little problem, and that is powell wants the rates to go up, trump does not want them to go up. when you have a head-to-head between the fed and the president, ultimately if the president presses the case, the president and the white house always get their way with the fed. fine to have a meeting. mr. powell can keep his job as long as he knows. don't go too bad on the interest rates next year. david: it's not supposed to work that way.

>> it's been that way since the fed was invented in 1913. david: bad year. i want to ask danielle a question. speaking of algorithms, now that you have worked at the fed, do you think we really need a fed? couldn't it all be done just on indexing and algorithms and computers? do we need people that think they're so much smarter than everyone else to pull levers and rods and chains and think they can manage the market? >> no, no, that's a very loaded question. i do not think we need people who think they're smarter than anybody, thank you very much. but what i will say is that we have learned a few lessons when the markets had turned down about momentum trading. if you look at the most heavily weighted stocks in index funds, they have come down more and gone up more than the average stock throughout the s&p 500, for example. so i'm not so sure that we have stress tested indexing and the godfather of indexing himself, the founder of vanguard, has

come out and said once these path of strategies make up half the stock market, they can become problematic in and of themselves because they swing prices too much because they have got such heavy weight in these massive indices. >> but the market ultimately goes up. david: there you go. >> merry christmas, happy new year. david: the white house may look to ban purchases of chinese telecom devices. is this going too far, or is it just what our country needs right now to stay safe? the debate coming next. i've always looked forward to what's next.

and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily

and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

david: the white house is reportedly considering an executive order that would ban outright american wireless carriers from buying equipment from chinese companies huawei and zte. in the name of national security. now, the white house releasing a statement that reads in part quote, the united states is working across government and with our allies and like-minded partners to mitigate risk in the deployment of 5g and other communications infrastructure. so if the president goes through with this, is it government overreach? what do you think?

>> look, i think we have to all sit back and appreciate whether or not we're techies or not, 5g is an international global game changer. and if we don't have security from the ground floor up, i don't think that we have -- i don't think that our politicians are doing their jobs on our behalf. the fact that our allies are paying attention to this, i wish they would be more vociferous and louder about it, but look, i'm not a tinfoil hat wearing person in the least but i wouldn't even buy a volvo. i would be too afraid somebody was listening. it's not that i'm paranoid, it's that the technology exists and if we cannot get via diplomacy the way that we would prefer it to be, then we do need to preclude the ability of chinese technology infringing upon u.s. and listening to us, frankly. >> yeah, i'm a little less concerned about the swedes who build the volvos than i am about the chinese. >> chinese company now. >> that's true. you're right. i am concerned about the chinese. i am. and i have to say, this is one

of those rare times where i'm kind of in agreement with the white house and where i think they're heading on this. i do think that they should pause a little bit and make sure that anything that they're going to come up with in an executive order is sensible, rational, doesn't inflict too much pain on people who have networks that are dependent on these products, but yeah, i don't disagree with their thinking on this. >> well, i think the fact of the matter is we do have a national security issue and this is where they should have, instead of putting tariffs on which are sales taxes hurting american consumers and american businesses, it would have been far better to go after zte, which we could have kneecapped them several months ago, huawei we should have gone after several years ago. that would have gotten the attention of the chinese and was indicated, our allies would have been with us on this instead of alienating our allies. we would have had a chorus and beijing would have paid attention. david: it's not without cost. there are smaller carriers, particularly the rural ones, 100,000 customers and less, that have a lot of their

infrastructure, their routers, it's not just telephones. it's an entire infrastructure system built by huawei and zte because they were so cheap. they have to tear that out at their own cost. it will be expensive. >> that's what you get when you build networks because they're so cheap. i have to chime in and say this. steve did not just come to the party because of this question. a number of weeks ago, you made that very point to me in private that that would have been a better way to go after the chinese. so here you have it. >> when you speak of -- when you speak of rural networks in the united states, for example, there are parallels that can be drawn in other countries in the world where china has taken similar measures, come into emerging even frontier economies and helped them build out their infrastructure for the express purpose of being then at some point in the future a dominant presence, whether they need to be or not. i'm very wary of the argument that it could hurt the smaller carriers. i would prefer we have our own

technology and our own infrastructure in place if at all feasible and possible, for national security purposes. >> i guess i'm a little confused. the argument david proposed, is this government overreach, i think it is, because i don't understand how this is somehow going to hurt china by banning cheap cell phones which basically the zte and huawei stuff is. i mean, if we're afraid of them tracking us, was that an argument? david: hold on. hold on. there is a legitimate concern which is that there are back doors, it's not just phones. these are entire systems, routers and so forth, that might have these back door systems worked in that could be a threat to all of us. that's what they're saying, anyway. i don't know if it's true. >> so we are banning -- you think we are banning -- this couldn't be, the technology couldn't be inspected by the nsa or someone else like that? i mean, i don't view this as a technology thing. i think this is a silly way to

punish china, just like it was a silly way frankly as my wife pointed out to me that we ban rubies from burma and cigars from cuba. we're afraid of -- >> i think there are bigger issues here. the chinese have back doors into the cloud. because they are at the outer edge of helping create the technology, whether we wish that was the case or not, they have back doors and we're not just talking about a chip inside of a cell phone. we are talking about the cloud here, where all manner of sensitive information is being stored. >> the president goes back to cold war dwrays where we tried make sure certain technology didn't fall into the hands of the soviet union or beijing back in the day. doing it sensibly would be a sensible thing to do. in terms of dealing with trade abuses, instead of piling on tariffs which hurt us, maybe not as much as china but still hurt

us, go after a company like huawei or zte which are not complying with the rules they agreed to. >> but then wouldn't the argument be to ban everything? couldn't china imbed technology in every product they sell over here if they were so nefarious in trying to bring the downfall? they can put it in washing machines, for crying out loud. >> how many people stand in front of their washing machines 24 hours a day having conversations? >> doesn't matter. [ speaking simultaneously ] >> i agree with you. especially on the cigars and cuba. that was a huge mistake. that aside, this is, i actually did some research into this because i did a story on it. it is a real issue. it really is. it's so easy to back door as david pointed out and so easy to bury a chip into these hand devices, and we know that it's happened. i won't disagree with you on

getting the nsa involved to see if there's a best way to deal with this. but we have to take it seriously. david: there are millions of these devices and technology. final word, go ahead, gary. final word. >> well, okay. it's this. if i have a zte phone and i'm connected to the cloud, are we really worried about that? yes, i suppose if it's in the hands of an fbi officer or somebody from the cia, but who cares if china knows what i'm putting into the cloud? i guess that's my point. >> they would get priceless stock market advice for free. not fair. david: six days into the shutdown, congress has gone home until monday. we are just a week away from democrats taking over the house. what kind of progress on some kind of deal to fund border security could republicans hope to accomplish in just a couple of days? california republican congressman darrell issa joins us next. shield℠ annuities from brighthouse financial

allow you to take advantage of growth opportunities with a level of protection in down markets. so you can be less concerned about your retirement savings. talk with your advisor about shield℠ annuities from brighthouse financial, established by metlife. from brighthouse financial, ♪ ♪ this holiday season, families near you need your help. visit redcross.org now to donate. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

the greatest wish of all is one that brings us together. the final days of wish list are here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. when it comes to managing your type 2 diabetes, what matters to you? step up to the stage here. feeling good about that? let's see- most of you say lower a1c. but only a few of you are thinking about your heart. fact is, even though it helps to manage a1c, type 2 diabetes still increases your risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. jardiance is the first type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease. jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event... ...and lowers a1c, with diet and exercise. let's give it another try. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint,

or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so-what do you think? well i'm definitely thinking differently than i was yesterday. ask your doctor about jardiance- and get to the heart of what matters. the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities

are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

david: in the last 48 hours, i would say that the needle has moved towards a very long shutdown. a partial government shutdown is virtually at a standstill right now. it stretches into its sixth day and the president just tweeting this out moments ago. quote, this isn't about the wall. everybody knows that a wall will work perfectly. in israel it works 99.9%. this is only about the dems not letting donald trump and the republicans have a win. they may have the ten senate votes but we have the issue, border security 2020. looking ahead to the re-election. well, congress did meet briefly today, but won't be back until monday and that's just two days before republicans lose control of the house. can the president reach a deal before then, or is he already looking to the next election? joining us is california republican congressman darrell issa. great to see you again, congressman. no votes this week. that essentially just leaves

monday. i mean, tuesday is new year's day so there's not going to get much done. can you do it in one day? >> absolutely not. it's very clear that nancy pelosi is now in the driver's seat. she's telling schumer, chuck schumer, senator schumer, not to send the bill back because quite frankly, she needs to solidify her speakership. this is one of those situations in which she's putting politics over everything. >> well, congressman, i hate to disagree with you. moments ago we agreed, but i think nancy pelosi's speakership at this point is pretty well solidified, number one, and is it really fair to say, i mean, look, i know you can make the case for the democrat position on this and the president's position, the republican position, but you know, do we need to throw the winning back and forth? in fact, do you think anybody even cares anymore who wins or loses a government shutdown except for the people who aren't getting paid this week? >> first of all, those people are getting paid. i think --

>> not this week. >> they will never miss a paycheck. you know it and i know it. they never have. the banks will even honor automatic deposits that don't come in if it doesn't happen. we have a long history of never failing to pay. as a result, over $1.2 billion will be paid out for people who did not work the last six days. it will be at $2 billion by the time nancy pelosi is sworn in. meaning that we will have lost in productivity as a federal work force more money than they claim is being wasted on a wall that, in fact, in san diego, works and works well and has for two decades. we have the busiest border crossing in america, in the world, actually, along the mexican/san diego border. we have a fence, a triple fence. that system works, it works so well it's a model for the rest of the country. >> congressman, steve forbes here. is it the fear of primaries more than her speakership that pelosi is reacting to, knowing that her caucus members who go along with

any deal with donald trump are going to get primaried in 2020 and they just don't want to have that happen? >> you know, nancy is in an interesting position. she needs to keep the government shut down so it's the quote, republican shutdown. she needs to eventually open it up, but only after she extracts considerable harm to the president. now, one of her challenges is, if she caves too early, it looks like well, she's caving on the wall. remember, she doesn't want to say what her base is saying which is it's inhumane to have a wall, we should have open boards and sanctuary cities. what she and the other democrats are saying, you hear them on every station, they're saying it's not an effective use of money. but as i said, they are already forsaking more money than the wall will cost in the cost of a shutdown. >> congressman, do you think this is a case where it's just a matter of time before they cut a deal? we know what the deal will be. trump will get his wall, the dreamers will get their legal status, and chuck schumer will

get his cross hudson river tunnel. isn't that the outlines of a deal? >> i tell you, i have known senator schumer for a long time. i know that he's a deal doer, so i'm sure that if pelosi, speaker pelosi says go ahead, chuck, get what you want, i'm getting what i want, he'll take it. >> yeah. i think if trump and schumer were in a room together, they would have a lot of deals done. schumer also knows he will get killed by his base. >> congressman, if i could jump in with a question here. i think there was a serious degradation between the two parties when they had the press conference recently, when schumer and pelosi did not want to have the meeting in front of the press. what do you think the odds are after the start of the year that we have more old-fashioned type of negotiating between the two parties and that we actually have the potential to have more forward progress? >> well, i think one of the proofs that that was not a bad

idea is that on saturday, last saturday, the vice president went up, met with senator schumer, said look, we already have over a billion, let's go with $2.1 billion and reopen the government, and senator schumer, because it was behind closed doors, said we're very far apart, we're not even close. now, in this day and age, less than a billion dollars is not far apart on a $4 trillion funding of the government. so the reality is, had that been, had that been in front of the cameras, the american people would have said they're shutting down the government over a billion dollars? come on. david: gary, go ahead. >> let me ask, you are a political pro so let's cut to the chase. how long is this going to go on for, your best estimate, and how much money is trump in the end going to get for the wall, if he gets anything? >> first of all, the president

will get a lot of money for border security, physical and electronic roads, infrastructure, that will happen. what i suspect is five or six or eight days after speaker pelosi has enough time to say she ran a tough deal, she will have to give him an awful lot of that infrastructure because every time a border patrol agent dies in a rolled-over vehicle or is attacked, she has to deal with not providing it. so there is real leverage because the president's point of border security and security for the men and women who stand at the border is one that she can't ignore forever. she will have to find a way to say it's not building the wall but it's going to have to build a lot of real infrastructure to make the men and women standing at the border able to do their jobs better and safer. david: i have got to ask about the composition of the new congress. of course, the democrats will be in charge but the progressives have more power than they have ever had. there was a strong movement to

the left, much to the left of where nancy pelosi is. in fact, they want to get her to change some of the rules. we will be talking about that. but is that a concern? i'm frankly concerned about the deal making that may go on between schumer and president trump in order to placate the big spenders. will we see this $22 trillion debt go up 10% over the next two years? >> well, the economy which we all know the underpinnings are extremely good, will help keep the revenue coming in enough that you're not going to see a ballooning of the deficit. what you will see, though, is that when you get this kind of a force that says i want to take power away from the speaker and from the leadership, that will tend to bring some democracy back to the congress. it may be messy but i for one, having been both in the leadership and not in the leadership, would prefer that some of those progressives succeed in wrestling some of the power that has been put in very few people in the house of representatives. you know, in the senate, every

senator has individual power. in the house, a lot of people for years, including the freedom caucus, have been ignored because so much power was in the speaker's hands. david: that's going to be very interesting union of people like you from the republicans with the progressives in the democratic party. >> means gridlock. that's good. >> congressman, i would like to ask you this. a couple days ago, the president issued a tweet where he told us that he thought he could have the wall built by 2020. you and i know how long the average eminent domain case goes on in this country. in fact, it's a little over seven years. so for the president to have that wall built by 2020, as he has suggested, you would literally have to have no eminent domain cases even though we know that the wall pattern he has planned crosses a fairly large amount of private personal land. how is that going to happen? >> the quick answer is that there's a lot of infrastructure

in addition to the wall to be built, but the president succeeded in redoing an ice arena right outside of trump tower years ago when the city hadn't been able to do it for years. if there's anybody that can speed up the process, maybe not to two but also not to seven, it's this president. david: getting anything done in new york is a miracle. thank you very much, congressman. appreciate you being here. as we just mentioned, the new democrat majority in the house tilts far more to the left so will they convince nancy pelosi to change rules so that they can rack up more debt and spend even more of your money? the maddening details, coming next. ♪ - [narrator] do you have less energy than you used to?

- when i was young, into my teens and when i went into college and played college tennis, i could play all day long and never get tired. as i got older, i started noticing a change in energy. - [narrator] scientist have discovered that after you reach age 40, your body produces less vital nitric oxide than it did when you were in your 20s. with less nitric oxide you have less energy. so how do you get your energy back? take one atom of nitrogen and bond it with one atom of oxygen. boom. you just created nitric oxide,

the miracle molecule your body needs to help support heart health and help give you more energy. now you can jumpstart your nitric oxide levels with the circulation superfood of superbeets by humann. based on nobel prize award-winning research recognizing nitric oxide as an important signaling molecule for heart health, superbeets uses the dietary nitrates found in nutrient-rich beets to help your body generate more vital nitric oxide, fueling your energy and supporting healthy blood pressure. - it really has dramatic effects, not only on the athlete, but the average individual that's just trying to get through the day. you just feel better, you feel more alert and you have more energy. - it's not the type of energy that you feel great for about 30 minutes and then you take a nose dive. i mean, this is sustained energy that gets you through the rest of your day. - [narrator] you would have to eat over 90 fresh beets to get the functional benefits found in one canister of superbeets. - [narrator] call now to find out how you can get a 30-day supply of superbeets free with your first order. call

the number on your screen now to take advantage of this limited-time offer. - what you've just put in your body is actually going to help you sitting at your desk for eight hours. it's this long-lasting battery life. - [narrator] for a free 30-day supply of superbeets with your first order, call the number on your screen. that's the number on your screen now.

david: so as we just mentioned, a large new block of progressive house democrats, including of course elected democrat congresswoman alexia

ocasio-cortez want to set the stage for the largest government expansion in decades. there's medicare for all, otherwise known as socialized medicine, but with government debt soaring to nearly $22 trillion, how are they going to pay for it? >> the answer is, david, they're not going to pay for it because it's not going to happen. there will be a lot of rhetoric about it but it's not going to clear the senate and little details about how you actually make this work and what the impact will be, all you have to do is look at germany which went whole hog on green several years ago. their electricity costs are two to three times of what you have in a household or business in the united states and they have more emissions than the united states. case closed. >> as much as it might pain me to say it, i'm afraid steve forbes has this one right. it's not going to happen. look, the whole green thing got shut down today when pelosi did not give ocasio-cortez the

subcommittee she wanted. instead, she put somebody in charge of the environmental committee who has taken a lot of money from oil companies. i think that ship has sailed. the medicare for all thing -- david: it's alexandria. i said the first name wrong. go ahead. >> the medicare for all thing is interesting. it's not in the cards in this congress. there's no way. but i think you are going to see the underpinnings beginning. i'm aware of some bills coming in that lower the age to 55 to get into medicare. i happen to support that. lot of things that go with that. >> we have to wait ten years to get on it. david: he already agreed with you once. >> such a nice guy to say that. >> i would take issue with you, rick. i think regardless of who's controlling congress, you're going to see an ever-expanding government and here's the reason. when you're in congress or senate, it really doesn't

matter, you have zero incentive to control the expansion. zero. it helps to spread the money around and here's the problem. we have right now entitlements about $1.5 trillion that we spend in fiscal 2018. we have defense of $600 billion. guess what was third? interest payments, about $585 billion. there is no way down the line we are not very, very, very similar to greece unless dramatic changes are made that i just don't see happening. >> step back and look at the bigger picture for a minute. in the latest data we have from october, we have seen foreign buyers of u.s. treasuries step back on a net basis for five months in a row, including china. i don't know necessarily that the rest of the world is going to sit by and decide to continually underwrite the expansion of the u.s. deficit. i would like to think that would not be the case.

>> the real threat short-term is not the deficit per se, it's what they call the administrative state. congress passes 100, 200 laws a year, the so-called independent regulatory agencies pass the equivalent of federal laws 3,000 to 4,000 times a year. this administration's made progress on curbing some of that, but that is the real threat to the future, these unelected people who make laws that we're forced to obey. david: but what about the idea, i know you don't think the ocasio-cortez element is that strong but they will be pushing pelosi, there's pay as you go, this rule that doesn't work too well is meant to stop spending money they don't have, but they want to change that rule to set the stage for later on spending. >> you're absolutely right. they do want to. it's also not happening. remember, people forget this, pelosi was the one who brought in pay as you go. i know pelosi is this great liberal democrat, blah, blah, blah. pelosi may be the most fiscally responsible person of the democrats in congress.

david: very low bar. >> but here's the problem. it really doesn't matter -- if pelosi or anyone else, the real problem is there needs to be a systemic change across. i understand what steve says about regulation. regulations and everything else is going to be choked out as i said before on interest for the debt eventually. i got news for you. in two and a half years when i'm eligible for medicare, i'm taking it. when i'm eligible for social security, i'm taking it. so is everyone else behind me. that horse is out of the barn now. it's marching down. there's got to be changes. we can't just manage around the margins. david: just remember, folks, people under 30 think it's more likely they will see a spaceman from outer space than they will ever see a social security check and they may be right.

>> they also want for their student loans to be forgiven and for there to be some form of universal basic income that comes in. they can't have it both ways. i would rather see the green martians. thank you. david: moving o linkedin's billionaire co-founder is now apologizing for unknowingly funding a group that worked to sway elections by fraud in favor of democrats. he says it was unethical but should it also be illegal? we debate that coming next. and it reall y shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. kayla: our dad was in the hospital. josh: because of smoking.

but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. kayla: do you know how hard it is to smoke in a hospital? by the time we could, we were like... what are we doing? kayla: it was time for nicodermcq. the nicodermcq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. and doubles your chances of quitting. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. nicodermcq. whoooo. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done!

david: the billionaire cofounder of linkedin apologizing for contributing $750,000 to a group that used highly technical methods of spreading false information about a republican candidate who actually lost the alabama senate race. now there are questions about how many other high tech hit jobs were used in the last election. should there be a law or at least new regulations to prevent these unethical techniques from being used? what do you think? >> well, david, there are -- it's kind of like when we talk about the guns. there's plenty of laws out there. the question is are they enforced. david: true. >> most likely it will fall under something like fraud but he would have to show some personal gain by illegal actions, and i don't see it. i'm not an attorney but it

doesn't sound like fraud. is it unethical what he did? probably, but that's going back to jefferson versus adams, for crying out loud. we have unethical campaigns all the time. i always worry when i hear about should the government make this or that illegal. it sounds very close to kind of shutting down free speech. >> the problem is -- >> i don't think -- >> go ahead, danielle. >> i don't think there's as much gray area here as it's making it to seem. creating fake -- thousands and thousands of fake twitter followers, creating a fake facebook page, to me, this is kind of cut and dry fraud. all you have to do is have it exceed $25,000 so legally, you are already there. i don't know, i don't think that this is a gray area. i think that some things should come out given the advent of new technologies that can literally fool people, which is fraud, into thinking something that is not the case. >> well, the problem is, reality

being what it is in washington, when they put in these rules and laws they always end up favoring incumbents upon way or the other, entrenching those who are already there, sadly. david: let me just talk specifically what this was. this was $750,000 paid to a group called new knowledge, whan they did was they came out with all these fake bots, if you know what that is, kind of sending out signals to the voters of alabama that judge roy moore was being backed by the russians. i mean, using that narrative that it was the russians that were behind judge moore. $750,000 is a lot of money. that could have changed this election. >> well, the aim was to split the local republican party in half, and the aim clearly succeeded. that was backed by a full-blown twitter campaign. it was very sophisticated. >> it's a problem, because you know, yes, it has the feeling of it should be illegal but you do get into some very tricky things here. candidates say bad things about

other candidates. if we make it illegal for them to do it, then you're going to have a lot of litigation at that point. david: good point. the latest will ferrell comedy is a box office dud with horrendous reviews from critics. referencing its failed attempts to poke fun at donald trump. will this be a wake-up call to the liberal media or liberal hollywood? we take that up coming next. hi i'm joan lunden.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

david: a new sherlock holmes movie starring will farrell is loaded up with so many anti-trump comments that no one * seemed to appreciate. would hollywood do well to stay clear of politics where it clearly doesn't belong? >> it would unless hollywood is set to become a not for profit entity. the last thing hollywood has done for a good long time is entertain us. we don't have original humor and thinking. i boycotted "saturday night live" in my house. i don't think my kids even watch

bad animated movies with that low a rating. >> i think hollywood does get it. if the show, tv or movie is a hit with anti-trump stuff there would be lot more of them. "saturday night live" which is have much anti-trump has the same ratings it did 42 years ago. murphy brown which is about as anti-trump a tv show as i have ever seen just wasn't funny and got canceled. if the show works and you have advertisers, that's why you see shows like the big bang theory and the voice. that's what hollywood gets down to. >> clearly i have got to get out more. >> i have a little experience in this world. when a motion picture is not

screened for the critics by the studio you know there was a problem. this was a bad movie. there will be people who would like to say it's because there were trump jokes. and there weren't that's. it's not that the trump jokes were funny and they weren't. none of the jokes were funny. the movie is a turkey. it happens. if you saw these guys in olered movies, they were funny. david: it's hard to be humorous. there is something about the anti-trump stuff. "saturday night live" has done this stuff in the past. when johnny carson used to do his show, he poked fun at

politicians on both sides of the aisle but he did it with a good natured quality. now there is a nastiness that makes it not funny. >> the lowest rated show on snl is when trump hosted. there was a member of this show on "saturday night live." steve forbes. you poked fun at yourself and it was great. >> it was a good show but i kept my day job, thank god. >> i think you just predicted the outcome of the 202 election and it scares me. this could be a spring board to another run at the presidency. >> my kids are already tearing their hair out. it was bad enough to have their

inheritance go for brochures and bumper stickers. david: that does it for bulls and bears *. we'll see you next time. take care. [♪] reporter: wild swings in the dow after yesterday's record-breaking gain. the dow plummeting 650 points. this on the 60 -- on the 6th dae partial government shut down. i'm jon taffer in for elizabeth mcdonald. reporter: a major turnaround for