>> it's one of the stocks to watch tomorrow. it was good to see up. thanks for joining us today. we'll see you tomorrow. susan: that's right. to end the week. bulls and bears starts right now. david: breaking news, the senate rejecting two competing bills to end the shutdown but we're seeing cracks along party lines. we're live at capitol hill with more on what we've learned today. and we're expecting comments from the president at any moment on an unrelated issue. presumably he'll be talking about the shutdown. this is bulls and bears. thanks for joining me and the panel, liz peak, jonathan hoenig and gary copow. >> i just got off with the phone with the president and all of us believe if we had three weeks with the government open, all of the discord coming from the

shutdown, that we could find a way forward to produce a bill that he would sign. he gave me some indications of things that he would want for a three weeks cr that would be good faith down payment on moving forward that i thought were imminently reasonable. rather than me telling you about what he said, i think senator schumer and senator mcconnell will be talking about this. so the three weeks er concept is a good idea. david: that was senator lindsey graham indicating that the senate leaders may be trying to compromise to reopen the government for three week to hash everything out after both partieparties' bills have faile. chad, i want you to talk about that but also talk about the fact that a number of republican senators crossed party lines and voted with the democratic

proposal. should the president be concerned about that? >> there was not unanimity. the vote was 50-47. there were two republican defections there, tom cotton of arkansas and mike lee of utah. and then the procedural vote was 52-44 and there were six republican defection, lamar alexander, susan collins of maine, cory gardner, milt romney with and lisa murkowski of alaska. consider this, david. that the democratic plan got more votes than the republican plan and number two, there were more republican defections voting for the democratic plan. the democratic plan was to open the government through the 28th of february where they go off stage and try to work this out. that's what lindsey graham is suggesting. i just followed chuck summer out

of mitch mcconnell's office abts aabout an hour and a half d 13 times, that's all the he would say, he said, quote, we're talking. we're walking. we're talking. we're talking. at the end of the day it's about the math. going to have to have 60 votes in the senate and they're going to have to have the president willing to sign something. david: and the short three-week plan, tell us about it? >.>> it would reopen the government at a continuing resolution. but the white house put out a statement, white house spokeswoman sarah sanders said the president would only accept a three-week cr if it has a down payment for the wall. by definition, that's not a cr. >> we're still here doing this amazingly so. look, you mentioned the math, which seems to be still bad

math. is anybody worried about the word bad and the word event, that something is going to happen to finally moves these dummies to get something done withi,going to be a bad event tt nobody wants to see. >> the fact you've had former secretaries of homeland security put out statements about this. people are starting to worry how safe is air travel. just how safe is the super bowl on february 3rd in atlanta. these are real-time issues. how safe is the food supply. you can't let these things go on and on. steny hoyer said we want everybody at their sharpest and if they're not at their sharpest because you don't have enough people there or b, their attention is divided because their fha loan isn't going through or if they're a farmer and they can't get agriculture

subsidies, people aren't focused and then you start to see it trickle down. that's what they're concerned about. and if there is an event, as you say, even in the early going if it didn't directly connected, people will initially go say saying well, this happened because of the government shutdown, they fell down on the job. >> chad, it seems like nancy pelosi is still a no, no, no, no matter what comes up and she doesn't want to negotiate still. do you think that senator schumer is beginning to sense that the country is not very happy with that democrat intransigence and that's why he is talking to republicans and trying to get something done? >> i think that those talks between mcconnell and schumer today, you know, the senate is typically a collegiate plate. the democratic leader and the republican leader they talk together all of the time even if it's off stage. the fact that that meeting happened is significant. and that's part and parcel since

the senate had not done anything since december 18th until these two failed procedural votes today. that's a byproduct of that. you have a more active coalition of democrats and republicans in the senate meeting right now and talking on the senate floor as we speak who have been talking behind closed doors saying what can we do to try to reopen the government. at the end of the day, though, nancy pelosi is going to have to be a player. and yo you now one scenario you see, you get something through the senate, there's a coriggs of democrats and republicans that they can cobble together in the house of representatives. in other words, maybe pelosi loses a lot of the liberal members and gets a coalition of republican leaders or ranking members on committees or proper yay tores and they vote for the package, that's one way to do it. and maybe it's the other direction, they get the liberals on board and lose the moderate democrats. there's all sorts of way to put the rubik's cube together. >> where is the master

negotiator. it would be great if it was just government was closed. but government is such a dominate part of the entire economy. you listen to some of the elements, new ipos to drug liblization and licenses. it goes on and on, the government is a big part of the economy. do those in washington, does the president understand the urgency that this is really having an effect, not just on 800,000 workers but on the economy at large because it is an interconnected hole? >> some people have definitely asked that question, whether or not, how engaged he is on that. now from the house perspective, whether you like it or not, they've moved 10, 11 bills to fund the government, fund individual programs and departments. the senator hasn't done anything. you had democrat as couple of days ago calling out mitch mcconnell, even nancy pelosi saying isn't he supposed to be the master at reopening the government and carving back

grouped deals. what has mitch mcconnell been. someone said the other day, we're glad he escaped from the witness protection program. >> the president is aware but he wants to maintain his promise to the voters about the wall. and to your point, liz, you brought up sentiment. you had the republicans shouldering a lot of the blame and now it's the m thes that don't want to come to the table. but chad, bring it to you, trying to get everybody involved in this conversation. you must have asked 13 times if he responded 13 times that they were talking. >> i asked once and there were others asking expwh. >> you should take the credit. >> the fact that the white house is saying now a down payment for the wall. what do you think? am i overthinking when i'm reading into those words? a down payment? >> how big is that figure.

is that nancy pelosi's dollar. is that a down payment. sit 5.7? it wasn't that long ago, about a yearing a at this time we had administrative officials saying we want the full 26 billion funded up front. and i asked -- this was mark short, the director of legislative affairs here at the time. i said, you know, there's almost nothing in the federal government that they fund on a multiyear basis except heating assistance, some military things and you know food, nutrition programs. that's it. so why was the wall in this special pantheon. david: chad, what about those republicans that voted with the democrats? are they willing to pass continuing resolution without a penny for border security in it? >> that's unclear. let's go back and look at the list. lisa murkowski, republican from alaska, moderate, sometimes goes on the other side, votes with democrats. alaska is a heavy federal state, okay, so that explains things

there. let's look at someone like lamar alexander. not quite as moderate as lisa murkowski but at the end of the day he's trying to find a solution. i thought his press release that came out after the votes was interesting. he said well i voted twice to open the government for the republican plan, the democratic plan. susan collins said the same thing. let's look at cory gardner, republican from colorado. the politics in cory gardner's state have changed a lot since 2014. it's gone further and further to the left. he's up in 2020. and so to vote on both the republican plan and a democratic plan to reopen the government, that's probably good politics for cory gardner. >> did all of those people vote for both bills? >> no. i mean you only had -- let's see here. let me crunch this out here. you definitely had all of those and then the only republican defections you had were cotton and lee. cotton in particular cited issues with immigration saying

it doesn't go far enough. he talked about pathways to citizenship, anchor babies. that was some of the rez las vegases that senator lee and senator cotton had with the bill. and that's where some wonder if they can figure this out at all. if the right portrays anything that deals with daca or tps. >> it's a big thing. it's a big theater. and meanwhile people are trying to, you know, bring ipos to market, get a drug that's waiting. that's what's so frustrating. this is a big, well, what if i look like i'm supporting daca. government is so involved in the economy that it is having an effect on the economy. this which is the party of smaller government, either advocating to get the government out of the licensing from the fda or the other alphabet institutions. >> and that's when you talk to some people on capitol hill, they would say almost from a cynical standpoint from the democratic and republican party,

the republicans are finally getting what they want. they ran against washington for years. that was the famous quote from ronald reagan in 1986 where he said, you know, government is part of the problem, is what he said. the other line, i'm from the government and i'm here to help. this has been going on in the republican party, you know, for 35 -- you know, 30 years. >> chad, just one last question. sorry. is there any optimism that three weeks in they're going to be able to solve a problem that is really been an issue in this country for 30 years? i mean these are difficult conversations on the left and the right. i mean honestly, is there an expectation? we do it for three weeks, everyone gets paid and then we go back into shutting down the government? >> let's let history be our guide. they toggled between multigovernment shutdowns in '95 and '96 because they couldn't figure it out. they had a similar scenario where this dragged on and on and

on for a while. at the end of the day most view this as a good sign because you open the government. but i'm going to drop this on you all. here's the problem. david: chad, i hate to do this right when you're going to drop the sword. we have breaking news. president trump speaking moments ago, taking questions after hosting a meeting on trade. let's listen in. >> one of the ideas suggested, they open it, pay a prorated down payment for the wall which people agree that you need. you need the wall. a lot of the democrats, almost all of them are saying walls are good, walls are good. big difference from what you had two or three weeks ago. and the vote, we had the vote on our bill which we won 50-47. that was our bill. but we got one democrat -- it was 50-47. and we need, as you know, we have to get 60. we don't have 60 votes. we need democrat support. we didn't get democrat support

other than from a wonderful man, as you know, senator manchin pep he's doing the right thing for his people. he's doing the right thing for west virginia frankly. and the other bill was 52-44 and that included a lot of hurricane relief for a lot of different states. so it's sort of not something that some voted for the hurricane relief. but you need 60. so that didn't go anywhere. so we knew they both were not going to go anywhere, we thought. and now mitch is negotiating with chuck schumer open we'll see what happens. i think they just left the meeting. i think they're going out to see their people. but they just left. we had two bills. i think we did well. the republicans held, except for two, two were not there. they weren't able to be there. there were two nonvotes. but even with two nonvotes, i think they would have been good votes for us.

50-47, we won but we need 60 votes because of the 60-vote rule. so i just really want to thank the republicans for holding. again on the other one, that was the opening up, that's 52-44, but you need 60 votes, a long way short. a lot of the votes were based on the fact that there was hurricane relief for certain states. >> -- spending without money for the wall. >> i wouldn't be happy with it. i wouldn't be happy. but we have a lot of alternatives the. for the most people people agrei would say almost everybody. we have to have border security. we have to have a wall in order to have border security. you cannot have border security without a wall. we can play games and talk about technology, we can talk about drones flying around. you know, right now formed is an 8,000-person caravan and the caravan is heading our way.

congratulations. we have another one. we stopped the first one, we stopped the second one. i wouldn't say that tijuana is too happy. but they're happily living in tijuana right now. and a lot of them have gone back. we stopped them. but it's very tough. and if we didn't have a wall in those areas it would have been hard to stop them. we have the military and the border patrol. they reeve done an incredible job. and i.c.e. has done an incredible job all over the country, quite frankly. we've removed thousands of ms-13 and others out of our country. if we had a wall we would haven't that prosh. problem. i'm honored that almost all of the republicans voted for our bill. our bill is the bill that we were really focused on. but we had almost all of the republicans. the end vote was 50-47. the democrats lost one that came over to our side. so they pretty much held and we held and again we're missing two republicans that couldn't vote. they were not here.

>[inaudible] >> after this meeting we'll find out. right now mitch mcconnell is meeting with chuck schumer and we'll see what happens. they're meeting to see if they can work out something maybe on a temporary basis. but we have a lot of alternatives. there are a lot of people who want this to happen. i'll tell you what wants this to happen. the military wants this to happen. this is a virtual invasion of our country of drugs, of human traffickers. of so many different things. of criminals. it's an invasion of our country and the military wants this to. happen and the border patrol wants this to happen. and the border patrol said all of the drones flying up in the air, they don't mean a thing when they look down and see thousands of people rushing the boardrushingrushing theborder. the only thing that works is a strong border wall.

>> have you spoken with nancy pelosi? >> i haven't spoken with nancy pelosi. but i'm sheer. i haven't left except for a beautiful evening in iraq. i've been here for a long time. >[ inaudible question ].>> i dou should have said it differently. local people know what they are when they go for groceries and everything else. and i think what he's probably trying to say is they will work along -- i know banks are working along, if you have mortgages, the folks collecting the interest and all of those things, they work along. and that's what happens in times like this. they know the people, they've been dealing with them for years. i think that's probably what wilbur ross met. but he's done a great job. ly tell you this. >> i just want to know, aren't you worried. >> looking at venezuela, it's a

sad situation. that was the richest state? all of that area. it's a big beautiful area. and by far the richest. and now it's one of the poorest places in the world. that's what socialism gets you when they want to raise your taxes to 70%. yoyou know, it's interesting, ie been watching our opponents talk about 70%. they can't do it for 70%. probably twietion that number. but more importantly, you have to stup stud study and take a lt what's happened to venezuela. it's sad situation. we have our eye on venezuela. >> in mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer come to some agreement, will you support it? >> if they come to a reasonable agreement, i would support it. >> even if there's no wall money or does it have to have wall money. >> i have other alternatives if i have to and i'll use those if

i have to. we want to go through the system. we have to have a wall in this country. we have criminals pouring into the country. and i'm not talking about the southern border. they don't stay there. they permeate throughout the country, including places like wisconsin. a lot of different places. and that's the problem. i say that we would cut our -- you know, we're doing well on crime rate compared to past years and past administrations. but i think our crime rate would go way down and i know our drug rates -- what's happening is the drugs are pouring in. and yes, they come through the ports of entry. but the big trucks come through areas where you don't have a wall and you have wide open spaces. we have to have the wall. you'd stop drugs. you'd stop human trafficking. i mean, human trafficking where they tie up women and put duct tape in their mouths and put them in the back seat of a car or a van, they don't come through a part of entry because the people at the port of entry

are going to see that. that's not like hiding drugs in the engine and the hubcaps. they have ingenious ideas. if they were ever legit, they would become very rich people. but what they do, they go through the parts of entry with the small stuff but the big stuff comes through the areas where you have nobody watching. you have hundreds of miles of open space and they go out there and they're loaded up with drugs or they have women in the back seat of the cars with duct tape all over the place. it's a disgrace. and you don't catch them. they make -- you don't even know the difference between mexico and the united states. they make a left turn after they go out 20 miles, 40 miles, 5 miles in some cases, and less. they make a left turn, they're in the united states and they do whatever they need to do. you need the wall. we can all play games and talk about technology -- i know more about technology than anybody.

if you don't have a wall, the technology doesn't work. first of all, the wall is based -- it's all based -- any technology works only with the wall. you need to wall. in fact a lot of the technology is put on top of the wall. that ice how you see it. the cameras and everything else. they literally put the technology -- they fasten it to the wall. then you have drone technology and that's great. in terms of what are you going to do. are you going to follow the people? first of all, once they step into the country, you know what happens, right? you know what they do. it's called -- what do they call it, you know? they put one foot in our country and we got them. that's it. so the drones don't help us. we have to keep them out. we have no choice but to have a wall or a barrier. and if we adopt hav we don't has not going to work. it's very important to me. one more question. >> the federal workers missing another paycheck this week. >> i love them, i respect them,

i appreciate the great job they're doing. you know, many of those people that are not getting paid are totally in favor of what we're doing because they knee the future of this country is dependent on having a strong border, especially a strong southern border because we have tremendous violence and crime coming through the border. we have tremendous drugs, the human trafficking, we have ms-13 and gangs pouring through the borders. and if we don't strengthen the borders, we're going to have a big problem i in future. one of the people i blame is myself because the economy is so strong right now, stronger than ever before. today, today, right now, we have more people work in the united states than has ever worked in this country before. that's a great compliment. so i blame myself. okay. but the fact is people come up because our country is doing so well and they want to break through our borders. the fact is that we want them to come up. we took in more people last year

legally than we have in a long time because we need them because we have -- a lot of companies are coming into our country. we need people coming in. i want people to come in but they have to come in legally. and they have to be able to help companies. and if they don't help companies and if they don't help our country, we can't do that, folks. we just can't do that. all right? >> why did you decide to agree with nancy pelosi. >> it's really her choice. i would have done it in a different location but i think that would im disrespectful to the state of the union. i could have gone to a big auditorium and gotten 25,000 people in one day. and you've been there many times. but i think that would be disrespectful to the state of the union. what she said i thought was reasonable. we'll have to state of the union when the shutdown is over. >> when do you think that is going to be? >> that i can't tell you but we have a lot of alternatives.

but we need border security. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. david: president trump talking about the state of the union, the shutdown. that's what he was originally there to speak about with larry kudlow, peter navarro, talked a little bit about 37 on. one thing he talked about was the fact of changing the entire immigration system to one that's based more on merit than the current system that that we have of chain migration and the watery system et cetera. is it at all possible that we could get some kind of fundamental change in immigration as part of a deal to break the impasse? >> well, you never know. that could be what unlocks all of this. to do that in three weeks time seems a little fast but they've worked on immigration for years. there was a bill that passed through senate five years ago that had 69 votes.

so there's been bipartisan support for that. it was never taken up in the house of representatives. that's possible. but to do it in three weeks time is unclear. but a lot of people i've spoken with here on capitol hill say that's what they have to do to unlock everything. they have to address the whole kit and caboodle. in the past couple of moments, nancy pelosi, the house speaker was on the floor, talking to reporters as she came off of the floor about this question of what the president is suggesting, an interim spending bill, having a down payment on the wall. she indicated she doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't intend to put forth any other proposals. the house of representatives has moved 10, 11 bills, all different ways, long term bills, short term departments, just for departments, they've passed a number of bills on a bipartisan basis, i might add. they're waiting to see what the

administration might put forth if they're willing to go for an interim bill to reopen the government for three weeks. >> if you listened to the wording that the president used just now it seems like he's not willing to negotiate because hee referred to it as games, and he said the drones doesn't do anything. >> no one knows more about technology than him. >> it doesn't matter if she knows anything about technology or not. it's something that needs to be improved at the ports of entry as well as on the water. a lot of the drugs travel on boat. but do you think that is a sign right there that he's mocking it, calling it games and drones just flying around. what do you think chad about that? >> well, he talked about that. when you talk to the democrats, hoyer and bennie thompson, the chair of the homeland security council in the house of representatives, they talked about a package that would match the president's dollar request

were dollar for dollar $5.7 million, immigration judges, drones, port of entry issues, dealing with other types of border security but staying away from the term wall. that's where a lot think i might be semantics and is this just a game back and forth. it's hard to believe when you have 800,000 people not being paid but this is the question as to who is taking this seriously and who is not. david: it's a game with severe consequences. that's for sure. great to see you. >> can i drop the sword? david: go ahead. >> they have to fund the government now and then they get to do it all over again by september 30th. david: here we go again. >> that's my birthday. david: thank you for that, chad, i think. elizabeth warren wants to do more than raise the taxes on the wealthy. now she's talking about wealth con ficonfiscation. latest developments on this story. you don't want to hi miss it.

that's coming next. vanishing deductible, you can earn $100 off your deductible for every year of safe driving?

david: senator liz warren is pulling an old idea from the socialist play book for a new annual wealth tax, this according to a couple of economists who have been advising her presidential campaign. while senator warren's campaign declined to comment, the washington post quoted the economist as saying that a wealth tax on the richest americans would decrease inequality in the nation and yelled $2.7 trillion over a ten-year period. gang, are americans ready for a wealth tax? >> this whole idea of equality as the end all be all is the fundamental problem here. bill gates and steve jobs have created a lot more than all of us have. these people earned their wealth. they deserve it. but for people like elizabeth warren, wealth is immoral. you didn't build that.

so they believe to redistribute the income to make the world equal. that is fundamentally an immoral idea but it's gaining in popularity on the righ left and right. >> doesn't the wealth tax include all assets including those that have been inherited by previous generations, not something you earned but something you've been given. >> someone earned it. >> but you didn't. if you have a wealthy father who passed on lots of money or a granddad, you didn't. and i'm not saying you're not entitled to that. maybe we should be going after the inheritance tax and increasing that and then these dynasty trusts as well where money is being put in and not transferred to anyone else. >> look, the wealth tax sucks, the inheritance tax sucks. none of this works. let me tell you what happens. people will avoid the taxes. they tried it in france and people left. this is absolutely insane. you know, we're supposedly

called the land of the free, yet what elizabeth warren wants to do now is if you decide to leave this country because of this, they're going to do the one-time tax. so they already know people are going to be so upset about it, they're going to head to the bahamas or somewhere else. it ask just amazing -- it's almost like on a daily basis right now we're hearing from the left the next tax. the next tax. the next thing that moves. >> to your noint 1990 there were 12oecd nations that had a wealth tax. now i think there are three. >> four. >> i think we're down to three. and the reason is because exactly that. it is a reallies incentive to create wealth. people are mobile. they will leave the country and take their wealth elsewhere. but i think it would be really enkeurnlginencouraging to see pe left talking about making people wealthier across the spectrum as opposed to making rich people poorer. >> they don't want people

wealthy or successful because there goes their votes. >> while we're at it, why don't we make people healthier. >> success is the biggest enemy of the socialist because the successful people don't need them anymore. you have to remember, these people have never created a dime of wealth, never created a job yet they keep going after the people that have done. >> these people? is this how you're describing it? david: these people are for con confiscation of private property. this is what it's about. it's private property as opposed to taxing income, which is what an income tax or a corporate tax is. it's actually confiscating private property and there is a word for that. that word is socialism. we got to leave it at that. breaking news, venezuela in crisis as socialist president maduro says it's going to close the embassy and all of its consulates in tus while john

bolton has warned maduro to end the violence and step down. could the u.s. get drawn into the unrest. former u.s. ambassador to venezuela is here to join us next. >>.>> we've told maduro very clearly yesterday that in they do anything to eng danger americans we will hold them directly responsible. with fidelity's real-time analytics, you'll get clear, actionable alerts about potential investment opportunities in real time. fidelity. open an account today. to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth.

♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. and i heard that my cousin's so, wife's sister's husband was a lawyer, so i called him. but he never called me back! if your cousin's wife's sister's husband isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal.

david: breaking news, protests continuing in convenience wa vea maduro says the country will close its embassy and all of its consulates in the united states giving american diplomats 72 hours to leave. president trump saying they're not going anywhere. and here's what john bolton told stew rt varney earlier today. >> we declared maduro illegitimate, he has no authority in o in our view.

at the business level, anybody who has interest in the western hemisphere, this is a potential major step forward to a lot of progress in our part of the world. david: and joining us now, former u.s. ambassador to venezuela. good to have you here. the key here is really the military and who the military sides with, whether it's the socialist maduro regime or the president that we now support. what can that man, what can he offer the military that maduro can't? >> what he can offer the military is legitimacy. he's been recognized by about 20 countries in the hemisphere, almost all of the democracies in the western hemisphere, including of course the united states, canada, brazil, chile, peru, argentina, and he can offer the military a way out of this crisis that your viewers

have seen and are watching on your screen. the hunger that the venezuelan people have been suffering, the incredible corruption that's been taking place there in the last 20 years which has resulted in the disruption of the oil industry in venezuela and the economy in venezuela. >> a question for you. in the past cuba and russian, for example, have supported venezuela's leftist government. what is their position now and could they come to the rescue of maduro? >> well, it's not just the past. unfortunately cuba and russian are still supporting their fellow autocrati autocontractict in cuba. they run the strategic military communications, the secret police, they give maduro day-to-day advice on how to handle crises, particularly, and

they run the repression. a lot of the repression that you see in the streets is orchestrated by the cubans, either directly from havana or on the ground. >> is there any sign that they're backing off from that support? it looks like the country really is going against them. >> yes. the government of cuba has been surprisingly quiet in the last 24 to 48 hours. i think that they realize that perhaps ma occu maduro's reign g to an epped. they don't want to lose cubans on the ground when they've supported unpopular governments. but the russians -- go ahead. >> mr. ambassador, you know, my big thing as i i watch this, ts man has destroyed a country and

he's taking away all hope from people. this is something i've been waiting for years is for them to stand up. do you think there's now enough momentum that let's say we're weeks away where this guy could be taken out and sent to some foreign land, namely siberia or something like that. do you think we're getting closer? >> as far as i'm concerned siberia isn't far enough for maduro. we've seen this. i was ambassador in the "80s. we've seize these uprisings before and they've been put down as the left wing and right wing autocratic governments put them down, which is by force. i think the democratic nations of the west should make it clear, as ambassador bolton did, that we're supporting the constitutional president of venezuela. he doesn't swear himself in. he was sworn many by the national assembly as the

legitimate president of venezuela. maduro is not legitimate. but maduro still has access to the guns in this country. and they have proven themselves, the communists in power, the socialists, adept at killing their own people in order to stay in power. >> if we're to be optimistic and maduro goes off to siberia and things work out and the assets are unfrozen in the united states, humanitarian aid comes through, do you think that's enough to help the inflation presh in the country? >> i think it's goes toing takea long time for venezuela to recover. they have the large ers oil reserves in the oil. they have gold, they have an enormous amount of wealth. they can recover if private enterprise the allowed to flourish. >> is there a program for exploiting that? is the left-wing government

going to be replaced with another left-wing government or will you see pro-market reforms in venezuela sna. >?>> what i hear from almost all of the members is center right, center left but very much a centrist ideology, the kind of economic policies that those of us in the united states who watch this program would like -- would be able to support. free enterprise, contract sanctity, market policies. they will need foreign investment and the foreign investment can come from the united states or the west. they've had russian and chinese investment that hasn't contributed to anything as you can see from the disaster taking place. david: we thank you so much for coming. please come back and see us soon. this thing is not going to end anytime soon. appreciate you being here. >> thank you, david. david: advocacy groups urging to

break up facebook. would it be a bad thing? we'll debate that coming up next.

david: severalleled a vo ka say groups are urging the federal trade commission to brake up facebook and unwind its acquisitions for failure to protect user data. the ftc is nearing the end of an

investigation into facebook following the cambridge analytica scandal. could a breakup be a good idea for the company? >> let's look at the negatives when you are consolidation at the top with technology. you have massive amounts of power and when they lobby washington which we're seeing. and you have the stifling of innovation. instagram is an example stealing stuff from snapchat. i use all of social media. but i think it's concerning. and had the microsoft ceo saying that facial recognition is something that we need to be concerned about. and i know that jonathan is ready to go and say no regulation, right? >> no. you're right that facebook has power but they earned that power. i mean facebook is popular because as you alluded to, you use it. it provides value. what's frustrating is that if

the mob votes on it, we can slit split it up. it doesn't mean it's owned by the public. this is privately owned. government has no part. >> should they be paying us for our data? should we really be thinking how we're putting our data out there? >> if it's of value to you, maybe you shouldn't be giving it to them. >> the problem is facebook is becoming data collecting monitor. thimonster. this is not what they are supposed to to be. i'm not for breakups, i'm not forgovernment telling companies what to do how to do it. leave them be. the market is saying so. the stock has been crushed. if they continue to do the wrong thing and don't work for the people paying them, then so be it, the stock will go lower. >> i would argue that in fact there will be regulation rolling out that covers things like consumer data privacy. it's not going took breaking up

facebook. i don't see any argument for that at all. >> i dplee wit agree with you. david: it's been a rough week for buzzfeed. they're trying to reinvent themselves. we'll explain coming up next. but allstate helps you. with drivewise. ..

david: the website buzzed feed with its show-stopping story

that was dismissed by robert mueller. now they will be laying off about 15% of its news force. >> i watched the interview with the two people involved. they didn't sounds like journalists. they sowrbledded like -- they sounded like prosecutors. >> it turns out nbc made a $400 billion investment in "buzzfeed." it was msnbc and nbc aggressively pushing that story. i think it's unbelievable they didn't come public with their involvement with buzzfeed. >> maybe this means merger. jonathon, maybe we'll see more consolidated at the top.

put them all together. >> it is a question of refutation. -- of ref pew takes. even -- much ref pew takes. there has never been a better time to be a consumer of news. david: a story by the wall street journal when i worked there was the edited by five different editors. they don't have the' editing you need. >> print is still more expensive. that'sed the issue. david: the other issue is they have a biased point of view. >> you have other biased websites as well.

>> this one was a whopper. david: they are cutting 15% of the workforce and we wish them well. it's tough to be without a job. we'll see you next time. >> the shutdown may have begun as a battle over border security. but it's affecting men and women in all 50 states whose jobs have nothing to do with border security. >> they should not be held hostage. they should not be told we'll not pay you unless we get our way on the wall. it's what president trump is doing. >> i'm not interested in futile gestures. it won't accomplish border security or getting government working. i think senator schumer knows that. you