to the convention center to the other, it takes like a day. it's fun to see the new stuff. >> the dow today in positive territory. back up in the green, for the markets. we like that on a monday. >> absolutely. thanks for joining us. bulls & bears starts right now. david: hopes for a china deal driving markets higher. so is china now desperate for an agreement? this is bulls & bears. glad you could join us i'm david asman. joining me on the panel, inside the beltway, . two days of key trade talks have begun in beijing with reps from the u.s. and china, meeting face-to-face for the first time since president trump and president xi agreed to a 90 day freeze on tariffs, that was last month. the president optimistic about china's economic weakness, that that will give us an edge in the discussions. take a listen.

>> i spoke to president xi recently. i really believe they want to make a deal. the tariffs have absolutely hurt china very badly. but our country is taking in a lot of money through tariffs, a lot of money, a lot of tariffs, steel dumping tariffs and others. but i think china wants to get it resolved. their economy is not doing well. they are down close to 38%. that's a lot. and i think that gives them a great incentive to negotiate. david: china's top negotiator made a visit to the talks today in which many are saying is a show of goodwill. is the president right to be optimistic about reaching a deal with china? what do you think? >> this is to me, sorry, i was talking to the producer over there. what we need to know right now is the situation with china, sorry about that, the situation with china is not that simple. they have march 2nd deadline before tariffs do increase. overall, though, i think china

will give some leeway when it comes to agriculture. that's something the president wants. i don't think the united states will get everything it wants in this deal, especially when it comes to the trade deficit with china. i think that's something that the united states may have to live with, i could say and think of it as a positive because the economy is doing so well here. i'm just more concerned about how that's going to change when it comes to ip. state control has increased under the president xi, since 2013, they have been promising bold reforms. where have they been? those are the issues right now. i think agriculture, going to see an improvement with these talks. >> the market definitely wants a deal. i think the market will be concerned on the economics side, the administration will be concerned if there isn't one. there's a litany of national security issues that still have to come to fruition here. we look at taiwan. president xi is talking about maybe even forcefully reunifying taiwan, with china. we look at the south china sea, over the weekend, we had a

chinese navy admiral threatening to sink a u.s. carrier. now, they are not actually going to do that, but that's continued heightened rhetoric. we saw from the cyber perspective, more continued hacking of navy contractors, of u.s. navy contractors by the chinese. we saw over the weekend president xi made his inaugural address for 2019 in which he warned the chinese military that it needed to be on guard about more threats. seeing much more heightened military rhetoric coming from president xi and all these top leadership. that's very concerning going into these talks because we can't negotiate in a silo here, just about trade. we have to bring the national security component in, and even then, i'm not totally confident that we can get them to actually stick to a deal. >> well, this has hurt us. i mean, the tariffs -- i just have to roll my eyes. the president is talking about how much money we're taking in from the tariffs. maybe only just the president, peter navarro and steve moore think these tariffs have been

good for the u.s. economy. i mean, apple, fedex, coca-cola, general motors this has been a drain on the u.s., also on china but also on the u.s. this is the nature of trade. trade is win-win. yes, the tariffs have hurt china, but they have also hurt us. i think everyone would breathe a sigh of relief if this trade war could get finished. it was supposed to be easy and quick to win, hasn't been the case. >> not in favor of the tariffs. i think tariffs are taxes. i think they have a negative effect on the economy. although i back trump with respect to what he's doing in china. and you know, the issue that was brought up a minute ago, can trump win on everything? you know, david, he doesn't have to win on everything. he just needs to get even a partial victory i think would be hugely positive for the stock market, hugely positive for the economy. trump cares most about getting re-elected. and if he can pull off a trade deal, even if it's a partial trade deal, i think he skates home in a big massive landslide

reelection. david: free trader can still believe that china is violating and look for ways to change its behavior, i think that's what's going on; right? >> steve, can i address what you spoke about? agreeing to something partial? do you mean only agriculture? i feel like that's the direction. i want to know how china will deal with the ip. do you think it is right for the president to declare victory when he will only get with soybeans? >>i think it will be more expansive than just agriculture. i think china buying more manufacturing products, oil, petroleum. i think trump is going to require metrics here, that they have to buy a certain amount each year, because you can't trust them, you know, you have to have enforceable guidelines.

on the ip issue, you know, they have already made some hollow promises. i think, you know, there will have to be some enforceable provisions there. my point is trump can get a partial victory here on some of these issues. if he gets re-elected, then he can get tough with china. my worry is what china might try to do is wait trump out, hope that a democrat is re-elected and they are dealing with someone who doesn't take the hard-line >> that's right, steve. i think that's what they want to do. that's clearly what former secretary of state john kerry told the iranians to do. this is certainly not new. [talking over each other] >> wait, wait, wait, don't talk over me. thank you. [laughter] >> i said it sweetly. >> good for you. >> so not forgetting my point, jonathan, you made me forget what i was going to say. it was going to be something antichina, but anyway, i forgot what i was going to say. [laughter] >> you know, u.s. businesses are

getting hurt in the meantime. you can't minimize this. 50 billion dollars plus in tariffs that have not been paid by china. they've been paid by u.s. consumers. you know, the tax foundation has estimated there could be a quarter of a million jobs lost as a result of these tariffs. yes, the u.s. economy is strong, but eventually i think this catches one the bottom line as it already has to companies like apple, like a coca-cola, like gm, so at some point, this comes back to really hurt u.s. consumer and the u.s. economy, and then where are we? i mean to what benefit the trade deficit, this is all supposed to be about narrowing the trade deficit, it's as worst as it's ever been. to what end and for what purpose has this trade war been brought? >> you made me remember my point, jonathan. i think it is actually possible to totally agree with you in terms of the economic effect this is having on american businesses, but at the same time, from a national security perspective, still arguing this is an important fight to have. listen, the foreign policy community in washington on both

sides of the aisle have this consensus for the past 20 years that it's this inevitable rise of china and we can't irritate them on the way up because they are going to be the number one economy. if you look, trump is not a threat to the world order. the chinese, president xi is an existential threat to the world order and to everything we hold dear. this is much bigger than just soybeans. this is about the way the world is ran and the way democracy -- david: there are soybeans involved and there is a lot of cost involved. i'm wondering how much it is going to cost to undo the damage that's been done. a lot of supply chains have been broken. this at the cost of billions of dollars not just to american, but also european companies. how much is it going to cost to get all that working again? any ideas? >> if it ever occurs. i mean, david you didn't even mention the billions of dollars in subsidies. you know, the right wing used to be against subsidies. i guess it is okay for subsidies

to farmers. as we said, that's the difficulty with tariffs. morgan, i understand your point about china as a national security threat. but the economy is trying to go forward and trade with china is a major part of the u.s. economy. and companies big and small have had to react to these threats, not just the threat of tariffs but the tariffs themselves by changing their supply chains at the cost of billions and billions of dollars to the bottom line. to what end? >> what's the alternative here? that's the question. we have to fight back on china. we're involved in an extremely abusive relationship where they are cheating, they are stealing, they are lying, they are involved in industrial espionage. they are hacking our computer systems. we've got to do something to respond to that. we can't just wear a kick me sign on us for another ten years. now is a good time to confront china. we have a strong economy. their economy is faltering. >> china has been putting forth the made in china 2025, a huge huge push on their behalf. so i'm still -- how are they going to slow that down, when it

involves technology? that is their concern, which is why they will give some concessions in agriculture, you are pretty much saying that's a win even though the tariffs in the first place were because of what was put in place by the president, i'm just still not understanding if you can address it, just how are you going to overcome this made in china, the massive -- david: quickly, last point. >> let me answer that question, because i'm going to put my money on silicon valley, not the central planners in china. when has china invented anything? every major innovation in the last 30 years in terms of technology has come from the united states. they are a copy cat, you know, country. i'm not that concerned about them beating, you know, our great companies in terms of technology. david: okay. that's got to be the last word. the president planning to address the nation tomorrow in prime-time, from the oval office, a pitch to americans designed to win more support for a border wall. will it work? fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely.

but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪

i have... ♪ i have... metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. i treat my mbc with everyday verzenio, the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. verzenio is the only cdk4 & 6 inhibitor approved with hormonal therapy that can be taken every day for post menopausal women with hr+, her2 negative mbc. verzenio plus an ai helped 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, or 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 include tiredness, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred.

tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are pregnant, nursing, or plan to be pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low 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 metastatic breast cancer with verzenio. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. i am a techie dad.n.

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

david: with the partial government shutdown now at day 17, the president is adding two events to his schedule this week. tomorrow he will be making a prime-time address to the nation from the oval office for the first time, and then on thursday, he visits the texas border. this as he seeks to highlight border security and press democrats for wall funding. joining us now is republican pollster chris wilson. chris, polls show the president is still behind on the issue of the wall, not by much. i mean it is very close. a fox news poll shows 53% oppose wall. 47 are in favor. it is going to be a tough sell, but do you think tomorrow's address could do it? >> well, i think the wall has kind of synonymous with donald trump at this point. it's a good issue for him and his base. whenever democrats, independents hear wall, they think donald trump. conversely, the president makes it about border security and what is by all accounts a relatively modest request for funding for border security and then makes it about the democrat

wos are not willing to -- democrats who are not willing to fulfill that request for border security, i think that does work out for him. it is an issue he can ride in a 2020 election. >> if we're going to follow up on that, in terms of -- you're saying border funding, yes, but if you are seeing all the interviews with pelosi and the democrats, they don't seem to be talking about giving a penny to this wall. do you think it really revolves around immigration reform and the fact that daca needs to move forward? >> it's a good point. i think what you bring up is the question of whether or not you can have a compromise. can you get the democrats to give up some sort of funding for border security, whether it's for a wall or some other system, whether it's concrete or metal slats, whatever it is, and trade for that for daca or other aspects of what democrats are looking for, and if that's the case, then if they pass something, out of the house and then the senate would immediately take it up, i think it would be an easy compromise

to make. i think this comes down to democrats look as if they are standing between the president in what again i would argue is a modest request for border security and when it comes about that and democrats stand in the way of border security, that's a winning issue for the president. >> he is saying this is a crisis. the president has said that, you know, the government workers that are laid off, former presidents, the landowners who are going to be subject to eminent domain, they all want the wall, but it sounds like the polling doesn't really indicate that most people -- it is kind of half in half. why is it that the president believes this is such a crisis but statistically, historically this doesn't seem to be the case? >> i think it becomes about semantics. are you testing it as a wall or border security? i can tell you specifically to texas, where i worked for the governor and senator cruz there. we did focus groups around the state. the closer we got to the border, the more support we found for increased border security and in fact a wall. now, the language of a wall has become so sort of inflammatory in its sense, but if you roll that back and make it about a

request for border security, and making sure that you don't have illegal immigrants flooding across the border, bringing in drugs, that's when you find the president has a winning message. >> one of the things i thought was interesting over the weekend is senator graham made what i thought was a good point when he said it is very difficult for the administration to negotiate with the democrats because you're negotiating with people who it's not that they don't want a wall, they don't want i.c.e. down there at all. they want to abolish i.c.e. i mean the rhetoric that we're hearing from the base of the party is very extreme. you saw congresswoman alexandria ocasio cortez call herself a radical on these issues. you see the border police demonized, called racist, told they shouldn't have jobs. how do you even begin to negotiate with people that have taken such extreme views from what the democrat party had just even five and ten years ago? >> well, i think you have to find elements of democratic party that don't feel that way. i will tell you, there are a lot of democrats elected office in

texas and other border states that do not feel the same way that ocasio cortez does and doesn't feel the i.c.e. agents and those who work in border security are somehow doing something nefarious. that's the key aspect is. i think it becomes incumbent upon the president and republican leadership to be able to divide out those democrats who are sensible and have more reasonable attitude when it comes to border security. once they can do that, they will begin to separate out the more radical elements of the democratic party from those that know that it is important that we reach some level of consensus here, that we do reach an agreement that allows the president to get the funding to complete his goals of trying to stop the flooding of drugs and illegal immigrants across the border. >> you know, chris, when the republicans won the election, the democrats did their autopsy, as you know, and one of the issues that really so resonated for trump with voters was the immigration issue. it was a huge winner. according to democrats, pollsters and political consultants, and it just seems

to me that pelosi, the last thing nancy pelosi and the democrats want the 2020 election to be about is immigration because it is a losing issue for them. and yet, pelosi seems -- like she's playing a winning hand here. how do you see it? >> steve, you are right. i think that is one of the things you saw democrats run away from. in fact, those democrats who did take radical stands on things like abolishing i.c.e., for the most part, those who were around border states ended up losing. you found sensible democrats who took a more reasonable position, they were able to win their elections. you had those like o'rourke lost because they went so far left on it. the key aspect is while is the democratic party going to embrace that element, that more radical element in which they do not believe there should be any border security, there should not be any borders at all and we should allow anyone to come across the border? look, i can tell you, that's not where most persons are. it is really a problem for the democratic party if that becomes their base issue. david: chris, i thought it was

very powerful when we saw those border agents with the president last week, and i mean, if you've got to believe between two renditions of what's happening in the border, one by nancy pelosi, that essentially we don't need a wall and one by border patrol agents who put their lives on the line, that we do need a wall, i take the latter. do you think the president's going to kind of double down on that message? >> well, i think he will. i think most americans are right where you are, that they take the latter. that's really the challenge. pelosi comes from a position in san francisco where they don't have real immigration challenge -- i shouldn't say that, i mean a young lady lost her life there not too long ago to an illegal immigrant, having said they don't have the same challenges that san diego or el pass doe or tucson does -- el paso or tucson does. you are able to bring in the border agents who understand the aspects and the differences and the level of crime that has decreased where you have had a wall being built in el paso and tucson and san diego, where you

have seen crime come down by over 90% in each one of those areas. so that to me is them standing up and being that third party advocate and saying yes, what the president is asking for is reasonable, by all accounts, comparatively, it is modest and it is something that's been proven to stop the influx of drugs, crime and illegal immigration. and as steve pointed out, that was a real winning position for donald trump in 2016. and frankly, i think with the strong economy, it is a winning position for him moving into 2020. david: chris, great to see you, thank you very much. we have to move on. appreciate you coming in. fox business will of course bring you the president's address live tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. in the meantime, congresswoman alexandria ocasio cortez laughing off a comparison to her policies and those of venezuela. will her socialist plans be anything but a laughing matter, if even just a part of them are enacted? wait till you hear who is backing her up now. >> when people hear the word

socialism, they think soviet union, cuba, venezuela, is that what you have in mind? >> of course not. i customize everything - bike, wheels, saddle. that's why i switched to liberty mutual. they customized my insurance, so i only pay for what i need. i insured my car, and my bike. my calves are custom too, but i can't insure those... which is a crying shame. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

i saw my leg did not look right. i landed. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt

or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®.

- with tripadvisor finding the right hotel at the lowest price is as easy as dates, deals, done. going on a work trip? dates, deals, done. destination wedding? dates, deals, done. because with tripadvisor all you have to do is enter the dates of your stay and we'll take care of the rest: searching over 200 booking sites to find you the best deal it's as easy dates, deals, you know the rest. (owl hoots) read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor.

david: freshman congresswoman alexandria ocasio cortez explaining her socialist ideas on "60 minutes" last night. >> when people hear the word socialism, they think soviet uni union, cuba, venezuela, is that what you have in mind? >> of course not. my policies most closely resemble what we see in the u.k., norway, finland, sweden. >> how are you going to pay for all of this? >> no one asks how we're going to pay for the space force. no one asks how we're going to pay for a 2 trillion dollars tax cut. we only ask how we pay for it on issues of housing healthcare and education. david: she did eventually answer that question proposing a tax on the wealthy of 70% and new york times paul krugman backing her

up, writing, quote, aoc far from showing her craziness is fully in line with serious economic research. her critics on the other hand do indeed have crazy policy ideas and tax policy is at the heart of the crazy. so gang, who is right here? >> certainly not alexandria. there's an old saying, david, that if you are not a socialist before the age of 30, you have no heart. if you are still a socialist after the age of 30, you have no brain. this may explain her. what explains paul krugman? [laughter] >> i think more dangerous than the ludicrous idea of 70% -- let's go out and make america the highest tax rate in the world, that will make us competitive. another idea that has caught on with the left in a bigger way is move to 100% renewable energy. we're going to try to energize a 20 trillion dollars american economy with windmills? it is really such a stupid idea. and yet most liberals totally

agree with her on that. >> steve -- >> republicans are going to lose -- they are already losing on this issue in my opinion. because what are they criticizing aoc for? 70%. that's too high. it would never work. their criticism is the tax is too high, to expensive but she gets the moral high ground. she gets to say wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone could get free college, free healthcare, all these things. this idea that what you earn is not yours and that if you make a lot of money, it is government's role to redistribute it. the republicans used to be against that. and if they want to counter aoc, they need to make the moral argument, not the fiscal argument because a paul krugman or another economist will come up and say no, no, those numbers work just fine, and they don't. >> regarding her numbers, though, didn't she propose a tax on only those that make more than 10 million dollars, and if you look, i think the latest numbers i have seen from 2016, there's only 16,000 people in america that make that amount of

money. so no, i'm not defending her, because that won't fund medicare for all, definitely not. the other issue, though, the other issue is you go back to the 1950s, where was the tax rate then? it was at 90%, and you did see economic growth. it only started to decrease when reagan took hold in the 1980s. and now we have anybody in america who makes over $600,000, they are being taxed about 37%. down from 39%. so why are we giving all of the super wealthy, again super wealthy these tax breaks. maybe steve -- trickle down economics. i'm not a fan of that. >> one quick point, your point about, you know, this only applies to people that make more than 10 million dollars. i mean, that's the ultimate bait and switch. first it is going to apply to only the top .01%. then the top 1%. then the top 5%. then the top 10%. look, we're a middle class country. most of the wealth is in the middle class.

if the left wants to get more tax revenues to pay for all these programs, the middle class isn't stupid. they know they are coming after them. >> yeah, that's exactly right, steve. if you want to talk about actually paying for entitlement reform, we can't afford the current programs that we have, much less an expansion of them. so taxing people at 70%, even the most wealthy, is not going to pay for any of these. what you actually need is a real bipartisan reform. i mean, some of the stuff we saw after the financial crisis, that went nowhere, where you start to really look at spending, at entitlements, at the tax code. listen, you're going to get immigration, comprehensive immigration reform passed before that happens, which means probably never. no one's really willing until everything breaks to take a serious look at this, and what it actually takes to reform entitlements. >> morgan, when you were talking -- jonathan, wait one second. you talked about bipartisanship, that's the ultimate goal, but you have a situation where the wealthy continue to get these tax breaks, and the middle class, nothing.

and we never question, what about that -- [talking over each other] >> that's not exactly right. >> hold on, let me finish the sentence. 1.2 trillion dollars in tax cuts, we didn't question that and the funding for that. i'm just trying to point out the fact that we didn't question that and now we're saying it is not so good to tax the wealthy. >> there were -- go ahead, jonathan. >> i'm question when you say we give the wealthy the tax cuts. it's their money. they earned it. we're not giving them anything. we're simply letting them keep the product of their own labor. until the republicans can get behind that, until they can say no, you did earn that, and you have every right to keep it even if you make 10 million dollars. >> why did we tax rate 2% just recently under president trump? why did we do that? >> it should be cut much more than that, but the spending is the issue here. david: let me answer christina's question. the reason is is because it is thought that government is more productive in the hands of private sector than in the hands

of government. it is that simple, that what happens when you bring down the tax rates of the most wealthy, they are able to invest that money instead of putting it in tax shelters and that generally helps the economy. >> everybody was jumping at once before, and now you're waiting for me. david: steve, have i got it right? >> exactly right and not just that, but the people who, you know, the liberals want to tax, the people in the top 1%, 2/3 of them are small business owners. they are the people that create the jobs in this country. why would you want to tax them more? our whole idea was to bring the taxes down to make america as competitive as possible. by the way, it is working. we just got the biggest blockbuster jobs report ever. >> yes, i'm not talking about corporate tax rate, though. you're switching now to corporate tax rate. i was alluding to the 2% drop. that had to do with those people in america -- >> those are the small business owners of the country. they don't pay corporate tax. >> 2% tax rate on the wealthiest people would pay for all of the

problems we have with entitlement, then i think a lot of people would be on board. that's not the case. it is not the fact. there's absolutely no way to expand the programs. we are going to go bankrupt on the current ones. and so having a discussion about entitlements is fine, but let's not pretend that taxing the most wealthy in the country is going to fix that. that's just a bait and switch. david: we have to leave it at that. as the president takes credit for lower oil and gas prices, reports now that saudi arabia might cut its exports and boost prices. how should the president respond? the day after chemo shouldn't mean going back to

the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their day back... to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

>> you look at what's going on with gas prices. i mean, it's rather incredible. if you look back four months ago, oil hit $83 a barrel 83. it was heading to 100. then it could have gone to 125.

you want to see problems? let that happen. after i made some phone calls, to opec and the opec nations, which is essentially a monopoly, all of a sudden it started coming down. i'm very happy with what's happened. i'm very happy that people are paying a lot less in many cases than $2 a gallon in gasoline. everyone is talking about it. didn't happen by luck. it happened through talent. david: that was friday. now saudi arabia and the crown prince who trump stuck by throughout the khashoggi murder controversy are said to be planning new export cuts in hopes to lifting oil to $80 a barrel. will the president respond, and how should he respond? >> back when i was living in saudi arabia in 2010, 11, the break even price we estimated back then was somewhere around 80. that was seven years ago at this point. government spending has only

increased especially since post the arab spring and other things that have happened. when mohammed bin sal man, the crown prince came in, he embarked on an effort to try to reform the saudi economy. he realized that they were way too dependent on spending. there is no way they can continue to operate at the current level for the price of oil. that's where you have an inherent conflict between two leaders that have had an incredibly good relationship. you also look at things like syria, where the saudis have promised more spending there to help with the rebuilding and the reconstruction efforts that the president wanted. the president is pushing them on this, but at this point, you have an economy that's entirely dependent on these oil revenues, and they can't continue to operate at it. the pressure can put more -- the president can put more pressure on them, but i don't know how much longer they can run at the deficit. >> trump is right, this has been an amazing decline in the price of oil and gas at the pump. number one is of course the

shale oil gas revolution. ten years ago if we were sitting here and i told you we would have 40, 50 dollar a barrel oil, you would have laughed. nobody believed that. it shows the power of innovation. the other factor here is a really out of control fed, that's so tight on the money supply, you are seeing a really dramatic and unhealthy drop in almost all commodity prices. that's a big problem that trump should keep an eye on. >> it wasn't the president's phone call? what we heard was the sound of the president taking credit for it. it wasn't his phone calls that did it, steve? his special talent as he alluded to? it's frightening to me to believe that a president thinks his role is to control the price of oil. that's why we have markets. in my estimation, the drop in the price of oil came at the time of a massive drop to steve's point in markets across the world, stock bond commodity markets. there was a tremendous slowdown in economy that brought the price of oil down.

you may not like it given the fact that it is lower demand, slower economy, i don't know, is that something to take credit for? >> okay. i know you are addressing that to steve. i'm going to jump in right now. saudi arabia, the government said they are boosting spending right now. in order to boost spending, they need their oil price to be around $95 a barrel, or they would be satisfied around $80 a barrel. i think that contributes to the fact that they are aiming to have a target of a decrease of 3%. so they are going to be cutting production by 3%. another concerning factor is domestic production in the united states, you are seeing it booming, which is great for america. you can have the president go after monopoly, cartel, whatever you want to call it in opec, he can't say anything to private producers here in the united states. you are seeing domestic production unlike ever before, which is great news, but the infrastructure is missing. and that's something we need to address, and just last week, baker hughes, also announced a reduction on oil rigs, so that

contributed too. showing that energy investment may be declining. i think there's a little bit more at play. i'm agreeing with jonathan on that other than just a phone call. >> keep in mind, it's something -- i've worked in the u.s. government for a long time and for multiple administrations and most administrations do -- they may not make it as public as president trump makes it whenever he has these phone calls, but, you know, certainly i've been a part of multiple administrations where these sorts of phone calls are definitely made all the time. you guys may not know about it, but the president likes to publicize everything he does. that's why we all know about it. david: it does happen a lot. let's not overestimate the influence of opec. as steve and christina have said, we are producing so much oil and gas right now in the united states. they don't have the power they once had >> they sure don't, david. you are right about that. saudi arabia is in a bit of a vice right now. they used to have the pricing power. trump is right, they used to be a monopoly. they aren't any longer.

david: thank goodness. >> there's no way they can get the price to above $80 a barrel. i just got back from texas, i mean, everywhere you can stick a stick in the ground, they are drilling for oil. you bring that price back up to $60, they are going to drill everywhere. david: quick last word, jonathan. >> sure, quickly, if trump wants to take credit, he should take credit for the deregulation and credit the magnificent american energy companies that are drilling all that energy. david: all right. last word. while apple doesn't officially appear at the consumer electronics show in las vegas, the company is still making headlines. are they going too far? we will debate it, coming next. so with a nationwide annuity, you can get protected monthly income for the rest of your life. that's what i'm talking about. how about those song lyrics? what song lyrics? tell him again. tell him again. repeat it. yeah, same thing. (advisor) so with a nationwide annuity, you can get protected... patients that i see about dry mouth. they feel that they have to drink a lot of water. medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth.

i like to recommend biotene. it replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works. [heartbeat]

unstopand it's strengthenedting place, the by xfi pods,gateway. 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.

who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com.

david: apple is not officially at the consumer electronics show in las vegas this week. but the company is still catching the eye of a lot of attendees, not for a new product but for a huge billboard that takes aim at rivals like google, amazon and facebook over privacy and security. the ad reads, what happens on your iphone -- if your iphone stays on your phone. the information on your iphone stays on your phone. does apple take its privacy measures too far? like refusing fbi requests to unlock the iphone, used by the gunman in the 2015 terrorist

attack. let's ask michael with formerly with the homeland security. is apple putting privacy concerns ahead of public safety? >> they have built their brand on privacy, they have built it on the fact that you can use this system and always be secure. there are cases where you know someone is a drug dealer, someone is planning a murder, or you catch -- agencies are so frustrated they can't get into a phone to perhaps find whereabouts of a missing child. there are ways where you can make a request to get that. they are so locked down. in california where they had the terrorist event and they wanted to check the phones of the individuals who had committed the acts, they couldn't get into them. it was a legal battle. david: they eventually found it on their own. >> exactly. tim cook says we must provide privacy, it is everybody's right for privacy. that's his brand. that's what he will continue to push. >> jonathan hill, thanks for being with us. are you telling me if there's

evidence of a serious crime committed, that a court or a police officer or a law enforcement cannot get a warrant to break in and evaluate a potential suspect's phone? is apple taking it that far? >> here's the problem. you make an arrest of an individual. they have a phone on them. they've committed a crime. -- i'm sorry, they have been accused of committing a crime. you want to get into their phone and see who have they contacted, who are they talking to? you don't have the ability necessarily to get a warrant on that particular phone. in addition to which there might be circumstances you can't get to it. you can make those requests, but apple has been very very tough in not allowing law enforcement to get into those phones. >> michael, we've heard so much about privacy regulations in europe, and i know that there's a proposed law in california that's very similar, and i think there's a lot of tech companies that are sort of preparing and anticipating at least some version of that. how does this regulation, privacy regulation in europe and

what what's being proposed in california, how does that play into what you are talking about? >> it brings into account is facebook. one of the things facebook is doing right now is they are going through the posts, scanning posts of individuals and seeing whether or not there's a risk of suicide, and then they are taking the information in some instances and giving to police saying go talk to this individual and do a check to see whether or not they are truly at risk. that raises all sorts of huge questions. there's no permission to do that. there's no awareness to do that. the question really becomes, it's health information so we have hipa, and that doesn't apply. the right to be forgotten now will apply to a whole bunch of ways that we americans don't normally accept controls on. >> if i can just ask you one question about third party apps, that seems to be the major issue. once you have people buying these third party apps from the apple itunes store, i feel like that privacy argument just goes out the window. what do you think? >> well, you know, it's amazing because of what americans put on

to net themselves. i've always said we're so concerned when wikileaks happened and we had all this government involvement with our data, we were concerned about the government having it. we will put stuff on the net, google earth, we know what's going on in our backyards. so it seems that's okay, but as soon as government gets involved, nobody wants to have it. i think gdpr is changing that dynamic. a lot of things facebook wants to do in europe, they have said no you can't do that. i think that's where the debate will continue to go. people are beginning to wake up to the fact that their data may not be safe. that's the ohr aspect of it. -- that's the ohr aspes -- tha other aspect out there. david: it's easy for us to discuss these problems and possible solutions without any kind of terrorist attack right here right now. isn't it possible that if there is god forbid another terrorist attack of some kind, particularly on the infrastructure, something that you look at all the time, that changes the whole dynamic and what is considered a total

privacy matter now becomes a big public security matter later. >> it absolutely does. it ratchets up the pressure for any of these companies to basically relax their privacy requirements and let people get into the information they need. there's another sinister aspect to this, that is the weaponization of social media. you take apps like what's app which has been utilized in india in the way it caused death of several individuals as a result misinformation. there have been instances in brazil. the content is also a part of the problem. you know, here's a staggering statistic. by 2020, there will be 6 billion smart phone users. and 3 billion social network users. david: yeah. >> this is growing so prolifically. we never thought about this. david: guys we have to leave it at that. mortgage rates have fallen to the lowest level in eight months. could this signal a turnaround

for the housing market? we will debate that coming next. .. [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪ - [voiceover] this is an urgent message

from the international fellowship of christians and jews. there is an emergency food crisis for elderly holocaust survivors in the former soviet union. - this is a fight against time. what we're dealing with is coming out, meeting someone who's 85, 90 years old, can't get around, has no food, has no water, and just wants to give up and die. and that's where we come in. we are called to comfort these people, to be a blessing to their lives. - [voiceover] for just $25, we'll rush an emergency survival package to help one desperate elderly person for a month. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen. - in ukraine, there's no supper network. they don't have food cards

or neighbors that come in to help. they're turning to us because they have nowhere else to turn. - [voiceover] your gift is a life line to help these elderly jewish holocaust survivors, help them to live out their final years with dignity and love. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen. - what i pray is that you won't turn your eyes, but you will look at their suffering and your heart will be changed. - [voiceover] with your gift of just $25, we can rush an emergency survival package to help one desperate elderly person for a month. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen.

david: new hopes for the mortgage markets. the average rate of 4.15% for a 30-year mort age matches rates from 2018. do you think this will help the

ailing housing market? >> i think it's too soon to say. i like to browse the still oh app and see what i can afford. but i don't think it will swing the spent lum. i think it's still too premature and say everybody is going to jump into the market. and debt levels are so high for consumers. >> a tremendous amount of credit card debt has been taken out the last couple years. residential real estate held up quite well. the' funds have held up quite well. this is one i don't own but one to put on your radar screen. these low rates seem to be

putting a floor on residential real estate rates. >> in some of these high tax cities, i think people will continue to watch the market play into just the larger feeling going into 2020. >> inventory is very low. builders have been reluctant to build houses when rates were going up. are builders going to get back into it? >> we haven't seen it in terms of the stock. oftentimes the market is the best interest kateor. the hold builders were annihilated last year. but in that bull market that suggests a new growth in inconvenient story. that's one of the' reasons keeping the first-time bierts out of the market. >> wouldn't it beneath in the:near future to see an uptick

in prices because of this inventory you are alluding to? david: that does it for "bulls and bears." we'll see you tomorrow. >> the democrats are using delay tactics. we have to fully fund the federal government and the department of homeland security is part of the federal government. they say they are interested in securing the border but they haven't made steps forward. we have provided a good faith offer to the democrats. we are ready and willing to reopen the government and insure we address this humanitarian crisis. liz: president trump will address the nation during primetime from the oval office. we'll carry it live