we appreciate it. i'm putting you on the spot. is it getting done? connell: no. melissa: i go with yes. that does it for us. "bulls & bears" starts now. david: we are now just one year away from the iowa caucuses and the field is growing with virtually all 2020 democrat presidential hopefuls announcing huge new trillion dollar spending programs, all paid for by huge increases and new taxes on the wealthy. is this what america really wants? let's ask the panel. kristina partsinevelos, jonathan hoenig, john layfield and gary kaltbaum. guys, isn't demonizing the rich an attack on the american dream? >> well, look, i would like to say that yes, it's a war on wealthy but more, it's a war on people who are trying to get wealthy. when you raise taxes and they are going to raise taxes on

everybody, it gets tougher every time you move up the ladder. let me just give you a list. this is just a one week list of what's being proposed. a higher payroll tax, higher corporate tax, higher capital gains tax, carbon tax, 90% tax, 70% tax, 77% estate tax. wealth confiscation, i can't even call it a tax because it's already earned money. i'm almost speechless at what we are seeing and what we are hearing. the thing is, they are doing it and trying to sell it because i guess some people are listening but really, it's just one big giant con because these socialists hate successful people. it is simple as that. success is the biggest enemy of these people. >> oh, okay. to your point, you are saying who is listening, you have democrats obviously across the board proposing these schemes but even a fox poll right now, we have the latest fox poll saying there's broad support for increasing taxes on the wealthy,

those that make $10 million or more. i know this entire panel, we love to debate this topic because they believe it would deter people from wanting to make that amount of money because they will be taxed at such a high income but when you think of how small that portion of the population is, i can see some type of reason why we could not move a little further with higher taxes in that bracket. however, wait one second. however, everybody likes to reference the 1970s, you know, everybody talks about the 1970s when the tax rate was 70%. back then, there were way more deductions so it made it not as bad as it would be now. i do believe that 70% tax rate is out of range but you are seeing american voters, american people according the a fox poll that's on our website, do support a little bit of an increase. >> yeah. they have been brainwashed. americans writ large have been brainwashed in schools now for decades. we have never seen it, to gary's

point, never seen this explicit hatred for success, envy of people who produce something, this feeling of well, bill gates and steve jobs got theirs but i didn't get mine. they earned it. your defense of wealth confiscation by saying well, it only affects a small minority, god bless those minority, those are the atlases on which our society is built. my god, a wealth tax, estate tax, now they are talking about a financial transaction tax. we are explicitly taxing wealth producti production, exactly the miracle american capitalism allows. >> what about some of the loopholes? instead of going after the wealthy, why don't we work on some of the loopholes? >> i'm for cutting taxes writ large but you're not hearing that at all. you hear the rich cause the problems, the rich owe society, inequality is the issue and we have to tax the wealth to remedy it. that won't get america anywhere but the poor house. >> i agree on the fact we have

never seen this, but history is replete with examples of wealth inequality and what happens. look at williams jennings bryant, ran on the platform no man can make $1 million honestly. look back to 600b.c. the greek leader staved off rebellion because of wealth inequality by getting people out of debtors' prison and erasing debt. the chinese limited land ownership. history is full of wealth inequality that comes in cycles and the only way to get rid of it is by one of four reasons. you either have disease, war, state collapse or revolution. the stake the democrats are making is wealth inequality, they are not trying to raise revenue, they are trying to have redistribution of wealth and stop oligarchy in the united states. >> if you think they are only after people that make more than $10 million, you have a bet on

the new york knicks winning the nba championship this year. look, they are going after everybody. a carbon tax? they are proposing, everybody. a vat tax, everybody. if you start -- let me finish -- if you start taxing the business owners, the wealthy, they may cut back on business. guess what that affects? >> they haven't earned that. >> that's right. they didn't earn that. it affects the employees. all down the cycle. they just don't get that. let me be clear about some of these people and their proposals. some of these people have been in politics for 50 years. they have never even flipped a burger. they have never even run a lemonade stand yet they want to dictate to all the great people who have produced -- david: you use the phrase which you didn't build that, which of course was made famous by liz warren. she's one of the people coming out with the idea of the wealth tax. but let me just say one thing. in that poll kristina cited,

americans who think it would be good to move closer to socialism, away from capitalism, is still only 24%. 54% of americans think that is a bad thing. i think they are getting fed a lot of these easy questions, you know, don't you think the rich should pay more taxes, well, everybody thinks so unless it affects them. that's to gary's point. there is not enough money. if you taxed 100% of everybody that's in that 1% bracket, you wouldn't have enough money to cover half of the federal budget. they are proposing doubling the federal budget with all their spending programs. >> may i just now, because i feel it's four against one -- >> no, it isn't. >> wait, wait. i agree that 70% tax rate is just too high. the wealth tax, how are you even going to calculate that wealth tax if it's anything like the estate tax where it's going to be yearly. that's going to be so impossible, some of these people that make $100 million and more. i agree with you.

but i don't think it's that simple. i think there is an issue that clearly needs to be addressed, the question of how are we going to address it. the inequality, even another poll, too, is saying are you better off than a year ago, no. it's increasing. this is fox viewers that are responding to it as well. >> can i just say the inequality issue, john, i'm sorry to hear layfield, if you are on the side of this inequality issue, it's a bogus issue. it's only unequal if people aren't free. what's important is that people are equally free. >> income accessibility. >> but that's it. steve jobs earns his income. bill gates earns their income. the fact they earn a lot, i don't know what you earn, but others don't earn a lot, that inequality is not new. it's important people are left free to earn as much as they can and keep what they earn. david: to john layfield's point, it's not new. this has been going on in the united states for years and years. the old editor of "wall street journal" i used to work for used

to say class warfare is the fool's gold of american politics. it glitters brightly until people realize it doesn't have a lot of value. eventually it peters out. this might just be the first stage of that class warfare. by the time we get to the election in 2020 it may have petered out. >> yeah. i think it's going to get much worse. jonathan, i'm not for wealth tax. i'm telling you there's precedent in history. last time we saw wealth inequality was around 1900 when you had vanderbilt, rockefeller, j.p. morgan, carnegie. >> god bless them. >> they did it legally. right now, jonathan, i'm going to tell you to shut up in memory of our old friend wayne rogers. right now, it's different because the wealth inequality is bigger than ever because it is a global market. look, there's nothing wrong with these guys aggregating wealth. what i'm saying is this movement, you see these guys worth $140 billion like jeff bezos, there is a movement out there, this wealth inequality is

wrong, there's something that should be fixed about it. >> why? why is it wrong? if he earned it? >> jonathan -- people are watching i'm sure are saying there's a bunch of wealthy people on tv talking about how we shouldn't be taxing the wealthy more. meanwhile, lower income population doesn't feel the same. david: deal with a little bit of the facts. john layfield, you are exactly right. it was around the 1900s when we last saw this income -- the equilibrium disparity. whenever you have one of these transition periods in our economy from one stage to another, you will have great wealth amassed by people that pioneer new technology. that's what happened in 1900s. that's what happened a hundred years later and it's what's happening now. >> let me go to the other side

of this. if they take the money away, guess where it goes? into the greasy, grimy, sleazy, slimy hands of government that have been so inefficient and ineffective, that cannot balance our books for at least one day, yet that's going to be the success story? david: let's leave it on the one thing we all agree on. good stuff, guys. thank you very much. alphabet out with its latest profit report, blowing away expectations on both the top and bottom line. why is it trading lower after hours? more on that, next. as someone in witness protection, i can't tell you anything about myself. but believe me... i'm not your average consumer. that's why i switched to liberty mutual.

they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and as a man... uh... or a woman... with very specific needs that i can't tell you about- say cheese. mr. landry? oh no. hi mr. landry! liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ woi felt completely helpless. trashed online, my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender.

they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. vo: if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-492-6705.

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work.

at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. david: breaking news. shares of alphabet, this of

course the parent company of google, now down more than 3% after hours. this after handily beating expectations on both revenue and profit after the bell. folks, one thing that was down was the pay per clicks, down almost 30%. this is the money that they get from advertisers every time somebody clicks on an ad. is that part of the problem? >> yes, it is. i own google, i like google here. they also have acquisition costs have risen. one thing i like about google, they own the internet. i'm surprised there has not been monopoly talk about these guys. they have 60,000 miles of undersea cables right now, underneath the oceans. >> just wait. just wait. >> they also have 50 of 100 of the top a.i. scientists in the world. that's why their waymo car division is years ahead of everybody else. this is going to be the most powerful company in the world in the next few years. >> it sounds like what people were saying about cisco in 1999 and 2000. if you love the internet, you

have to own cisco. cisco did very well but the stock was dead money for a decade. listen, i'm sorry you own google. you are losing all that money this afternoon. this is a stock i would avoid. great company, fantastic company, but when you buy stock you buy a valuation. just as we saw with technology stocks basically take a decade off from 2000 to 2010, that's where we are now. the market is up in january but it hasn't been the fangs leading the way. >> i think there's a possibility we could see an increase in the stock, though, once the call is over, the earnings call, because we are going to get more details about recovery new. revenue. you have waymo as an excellent example, or even the pixel phones they launched this past quarter to see how those sales are doing. we know youtube has been the largest source of ad revenue for them. these are numbers i would be concerned about looking at that and that could possibly swing the stock forward. if we're looking at the average

price target for it, $13.46 right now. you do see some upside. people are still optimistic on the stock aside from jonathan. >> i think some weakness is showing, 11% tax rate and capx was up 80% year over year. i think that's doing the trick. plus the stock has had a decent move recently. i think they are huge, they are the straw that stirs the drink, but i do believe valuation matters and i think also markets matter. right now the market's in a sweet spot off the easy money. i think if it ends, google could head south like a few other of those big names that led for a couple of years. >> yeah. if you think, i mean, the rich are public enemy number one but big cap tech is maybe publicly enemy number two. john, to your point, the regulation is not a question of when, but -- if, but when companies like google and facebook get hit with major

regulation here in the states just as they already have in europe. david: i want to throw in with jonathan for a second. one of the problems, one of the strengths you guys say is their size but sometimes that can be a problem. people can get lazy. corporations can get lazy. they spend more money than they should be spending. that's what google is doing right now on these acquisition costs. the money they pay apple in order to get on apple sites and so forth. they are getting less money in return. is it possible that they are getting a little lazy because they are so big? >> you know what, i don't think it's about lazy. i just think they are trying to get into a lot of things. throughout the years i always worry when a company gets away from their bread and butter and start spreading themselves into all kinds of other areas. we have seen a lot of failures because of that. so far, they have done pretty well. i'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. it hasn't been the greatest of fang stocks but i think it's in good enough shape here. >> to your point, you mentioned diversification.

john layfield, this is for you. would you consider this a long-term hold given the possibility of regulatory hurdles in the near say year or year and a half? >> yeah, that's a great question. i agree with jonathan. that is the biggest worry i have with google and facebook which i also own. the politicians always tend to go after someone they think has less approval rating, the banks, lenders, big tech companies. i think they will end up going after google. google so far has avoided that but they have 50 of the top 100a.i. scientist ins ts in the working for them. their future growth comes with waymo and what they are doing other than search. that's what they are using to fund it. that's why i like this company so much. david: "the washington post" and its owner jeff bezos now under fire from the inside. why one reporter is crying foul over the paper's super bowl ad last night. media buzz host on the fallout, next.

sometimes, they just drop in. cme group can help you navigate risks and capture opportunities. we enable you to reach global markets and drive forward with broader possibilities. cme group - how the world advances. ♪ 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. ♪ ♪

there's someone to gather the facts, to bring you the sto story, no matter the cost. because knowing empowers us. knowing helps us decide. knowing keeps us free. david: yes, you did see a reference to fox news and bret baier in that. if you were watching the super bowl you probably saw this ad for "the washington post." owner jeff bezos tweeting after it aired grateful for the journalists at "the washington post" and around the world who do the work no matter the risks and dangers they face. bezos and company are now coming under fire from within for spending what may be close to $10 million on it with at least

one "the washington post" reporter speaking out with this tweet. quote, now unfreeze our pensions, pay an equal wage and strengthen maternity benefits. we are joined by fox news channel's mediabuzz host howie kurtz. there has been a little bit of backfire here. would it have been better if he hadn't done it at all? >> first of all, it's a lot more interesting to talk about this than that hideous game. hash tag, worst super bowl ever. i'm all for celebrating journalists. wish i had tom hanks voicing a commercial for me. as i was watching that before i knew there was pushback from the staff, i was thinking the $5 million it cost to buy that time plus whatever the production costs were, how much good journalism would that buy, how many reporters' salaries could that have paid as opposed to the fleeting high of getting 60 seconds -- david: 50 reporters at $100,000 a year. that's how many. at least for one year. it could have hired 50 reporters. >> you did the math. david: pretty simple. >> to your point, yes, it could

have, the money maybe could have been better well spent, especially when reporters have said, part-time reporters said their health insurance has been cut in half by "the washington post." there's a lot of complaints from that side. but don't you think as a whole, howie, i feel like you can relate a little bit, journalism has almost hit a crisis and potentially even needs a p.r. campaign. i will reference a poll from pew research saying 20% of u.s. adults have a lot of trust in news organizations but 1 in 3 have none at all or not too much trust in news organizations. obviously, i'm a journalist first. it's worrisome going forward. >> journalists are, journalism is absolutely in a major crisis. it will take more than a p.r. campaign to reverse that, particularly in the trump era. look, i didn't particularly like the gauzy opening images of the moon landing, world war ii, i didn't see what that had to do with juournalism. when it got to the sacrifices, honoring journalists who lost

their lives in the line of duty, that's where it kind of hit home. we have to say, although this money came out of bezos' pocket, there was a separate ad for amazon, jeff bezos is a branding expert so he knows a lot about how to get that brand across and maybe that helps "the washington post" but again, i think p.r. campaign doesn't begin to scratch the surface of journalism's very serious problems. >> this is gary kaltbaum. this is the first time i have been on any show with you. i absolutely love your show on the weekends. it's even-handed and there's not many out there like that. congratulations on that. >> thank you. >> you got it. i want to talk about you just mentioned about bezos. the man is a genius marketer and brand also. for me, it feels like the intangible, this type of ad that we are talking about it and many others are talking about it now, will carry some weight as we go forward because look, without a doubt there has been an attack on journalists and we all know what happened with khashoggi.

don't you think the intangible part of this means something and has some positives to it? >> i'm sure it means something because you know, look, a few years ago "the washington post" before bezos bought it was struggling, didn't have the resources to compete. he comes in, they hired a lot of new reporters and to his credit, although president trump constantly disagrees, he pretty much takes a hands-off attitude towards the newsroom. at the same time, the "post" has credibility problems with people who support this president because so much of the coverage, not just the commentary but news coverage, has been negative toward the president. is it intangible to have that slogan up there? it obviously helps but there's something about democracy dies in darkness that rubs me the wrong way because it wasn't the slogan of the "post" in the obama era. david: wasn't this a replacement commercial? wasn't initially what bezos was going to do, a commercial for his space company and there was too much negative pushback because apparently, his girlfriend was filming part of that commercial, didn't want the

personal blowback so he substituted that? isn't this a substitution for that? it wasn't like this was thought out long-term in advance. >> oh, i didn't know the back story there, and maybe thinking he would rather spend his money on branding "the washington post" than giving out in the divorce settlement, i don't know. look, it doesn't hurt "the washington post" because we are all talking about it. even people who don't like the "post" reporting i guess could be reminded of the fact that despite all the allegations of fake news and a lot of the self-inflicted wounds of the news busy talk about on fox every week, there are a lot of journalists who go out and risk their lives in war zones, in disaster areas and stuff like that. it was nice to see those scenes. you know, as opposed to another commercial pushing alexa or pushing other corporate products, maybe it was worth 60 seconds. only jeff bezos can decide whether it was worth ten million bucks. >> howard, i echo gary's point. i always enjoy your show on the weekend. your analysis of the news media writ large. why is it now that given the sacrifices so many journalists

make, daniel pearl was not on that list but we know many journalists worldwide lost their lives in pursuit of the truth, why is there so much in america, which has always celebrated a free and diverse fourth estate? >> because you have such a polarized political and media culture right now that, you know, part of the country loves donald trump, part of the country can't stand donald trump and the people who do support this president feel he does not get a fair shake from all the big news organizations. the president himself is often tweeting against bezos, no secret, doesn't like bezos, doesn't like amazon and "the washington post" as well as the quote, failing "new york times" which gave a 90-minute interview so i guess he still wants some level of approval from the "times." we have been caught up in the polarization and people lose sight of the fact there are reporters who try to do a fair job and reporters who put themselves in harm's way. david: final comment, i want to bring it back to the beginning where the reporter was criticizing not spending enough. one thing that has led i would

argue to some of the bad mistakes the media has made, not only their own bias, but also the fact they have been laying off a lot of editors and a lot of people behind the scenes that would double-check and triple-check stories. i used to, at the "journal" have four editors before one of my stories would hit the press. i would have four editors going over it with a fine tooth comb. now those editors are going and they could spend more money on editors and maybe they wouldn't get so many stories wrong that way. >> yeah. but it's a really difficult business culture right now, as you know, with shrinking print circulation, with competition with facebook and google for digital ads. they have had to make sacrifices but it does show up in things that get through, in all kinds of headline typos and all that. i think that's not a good look. right now it's a game of survival. it so happens "the washington post," "journal" and "new york times" are doing better than a lot of the regional papers out there in this tough environment. david: he could have spent the millions on hiring a few editors. great to see you.

appreciate you coming on. democrats now pushing harder to expand social security but how are they going to pay for it? we will be asking democrat congressman john garimendi, next. to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. jerry♪eastbound and down.ound loaded up and truckin'♪ ♪we gonna do what they say can't be done♪ ♪we've got a long way to go ♪and a short time to get there.♪

♪i'm eastbound, just watch ole bandit run♪ whatever party you've got going in the back, we've got the business up front.

whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do.

and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor

david: after years of worrying about the long-term solvency of social security, democrats are pushing a plan to increase benefits for the retirement program and they already have the support from over 200 house members. while the bill increases the social security monthly payment by about 2%, it would also raise the payroll tax to 14.8% over the next 24 years. let's bring in democrat congressman john garamendi. thank you so much for being here. i want to start with a hard, cold fact. the wealthiest 20% of this country now pay 87% of all the income tax.

87%. it's just that 20% at the top. you can't get more than 100%, obviously, for income tax so how do you pay for this program and all the other programs if you're already squeezing that top 20%? >> well, first of all, social security and medicare are not an income tax. they are a payroll tax and in fact, it happens to be one of the more regressive taxes that we have, because your very first dollar of earnings, you are taxed at 12.5% today. it's going up to 14%, that's still a very heavy burden on those who are earning the very least in our country and the social security maxes out i think at about $160,000 of income today. so for those people that are at that very top, as you were talking about, the top 20%, most of their earnings are not taxed for social security or for -- for social security, they are for medicare. >> kristina partsinevelos here.

it's really been about soaking the rich and jonathan may like that term, but don't you think the real crisis here is the people that are set to retire, so americans set to retire, with so little savings. maybe not relying so much on the social system and social security, but the fact that nobody is saving and that could be many reasons for it but don't you think that's the issue? >> well, it's certainly a big piece of the issue, you are quite correct. most people retiring are increasingly dependent on social security, hence the necessity of dealing with that issue as we are in this particular piece of legislation. the other thing there's been a profound change in retirement programs across the nation over the last 15 to 20 years. most companies have moved away from plans that provide a defined benefit, they have gone to one that does not have a defined benefit and more and more are not providing much, if any, retirement savings, retirement programs at all and we have seen this really in what

do we call it, the gig economy. that's another major problem that's going to crop up in the years ahead. people are going to depend upon social security and that's what this issue is all about. >> congressman, excuse me, thank you for being with us, it's jonathan hoenig. kristina is right, a lot of people aren't saving privately but social security isn't savings. there's no savings account with one's name on it. it's simply a promise to loot future generations as current generations are being looted. explain to us how is social security really not simply a ponzi scheme of redistribution? >> well, you stated just about everything incorrectly there. social security is precisely that. it is a promise for those of us that are working, that we are paying into a system that is providing benefits to those who are retired today and the deal is, the promise is that when we get ready to retire, then that

same program will continue, so what we are trying to deal with here is to make sure that it does continue, that it is going to be available. now, there are some very profound challenges that confront anybody that's about to retire. first of all, more and more retirees and fewer and fewer people working. that has to do with the demographics of our nation and as we discussed before, many of the businesses around the nation are moving away from providing pensions. >> if i may, that's just it. that's my point. unlike a private savings, in the past republicans have moved to try to privatize social security, there is no actual account of savings with any of our name on it, right? as you pointed out, it's just the promise if you will to tax future generations for our benefits in the future. you would cede that, would you not? >> that is how the system works. that's what i just explained. yes. >> congressman?

john layfield here. the social security has done a lot to eradicate poverty in the elderly. i commend you for trying to fix that. i don't like necessarily raising taxes to do it and the reason i don't, 1968, when lyndon johnson put it in the unified budget, it allowed politicians to stick their hands in the till which led to a lot of the insolvency we have now. how are you going to stop that in the future, if you have more money coming in, politicians taking that money and also, sir, the democrats under president obama doubled the debt. the republicans under bush doubled the debt. are you guys ever going to get this debt under control? >> you just went through a whole lot of questions. let's take them apart one at a time here if we can. great questions, all of them. with regard to the national debt, we are going -- right now, we are suffering through a major increase in the annual deficit which is going to significantly increase the national debt.

a large part of that has to do with the tax cut that was december 2017 tax cut, which i might say had absolutely no public hearings at all, and therefore, what was the import of it? the import of it was an astounding increase in the national debt and frankly, most of the benefits, 80%, 85% of the benefits went to the top 10% earners in america. so those are the facts with regard to that tax cut and the ongoing deficit. no doubt about the deficit was dramatically increased as a result of the meltdown in 2008 and '09. that was a huge increase. also, the fact going back to george w. bush, the wars in afghanistan and iraq were the first wars in america's history -- [ speaking simultaneously ] >> you're not going to cut spending. >> pardon? i didn't hear you. david: gary, go ahead. >> congressman, are you, first i

want to ask, are you saying the democrats have nothing to do with the debt and deficit? you blame bush, you are blaming trump, but what about obama in between? >> i did, perhaps we weren't communicating as clearly as we should. there are three stages of deficit increase that we have seen. coming out of the democratic clinton administration, we were running a surplus and wall street was scared to death that we might actually eliminate the national debt. then we had the war, afghanistan and iraq. neither of which were paid for, and if i might say, part d of the medicare program, all of that without being paid for at all. that ran up the deficit. then there was the meltdown 2008-09 and clearly, during the obama administration, there was a very very significant increase in the debt and deficit.

david: we have to have you back soon. please, we have run out of time. we could do this for a long time. thank you so much for being here. really appreciate it. meanwhile, pressure mounting against venezuela's disputed president maduro but will economic pressure be enough for him to go? we'll debate that coming next. 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?

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

david: a coalition of european nations have now joined the united states and most latin american nations in recognizing venezuela's opposition leader, juan guaido, as the country's interim president. tightening the pressure on the disputed president, nicholas maduro, to step down. fox news' benjamin hall has the latest from overseas. reporter: there's a real feeling that something has to give soon. more and more countries are recognizing juan guaido as the interim president of venezuela, but of course, on the other side, you have russia and china and crucially, the venezuelan military who still support nicholas maduro and he has been defiant until the end. major protests erupted over the weekend which saw tens of thousands of people come out to the streets in support of guaido and maduro. today, 12 european nations followed the u.s. and canada in recognizing guaido as president after maduro refused to call a

new presidential election. >> that was the wealthiest country of all in that part of the world which is a very important part of the world, and now you look at the poverty and you look at the anguish and you look at the crime and you look at all of the things happening, so i think the process is playing out very, very big. tremendous protests. reporter: guaido is planning to put pressure on rank and file soldiers by arranging humanitarian aid deliveries into the country in the coming days. he hopes it will force the army to choose between helping the starving people of venezuela or supporting their corrupt leaders. the venezuelan economy is now being hit hard. crude exports are declining sharply as new sanctions take hold. on monday, the u.s. imposed sanctions on venezuela's state-owned oil giant in an attempt to prevent the proceeds of crude sales from reaching president maduro. maduro survives only because of the ongoing support of the military, but there have been some high profile defections

over the last few days including a major air force general. guaido has said that over the last few days he's also had some contact both with the chinese and with the venezuelan military. if either of those were to switch sides and join him now, it could set the tone for the future. back to you. david: so gang, is economic pressure going to be enough to get rid of maduro? what do you think? >> i don't think it's going to be. maduro was elected overwhelmingly just last year. we should not be in the business of picking political leaders. look what happened in egypt. we made a mess of that over there. i think the venezuelan people, the problem they have there is not necessarily socialism, that is a problem, it is corruptness. hugo chavez ruined this beautiful country and now they are being forced to tedeal with it. it will take a long time to play out. >> this dude is going nowhere. he's a murderous, psychopathic thug. he's bought off the military. this will not be economic until the military changes its stance and gets on the side of logic because this guy has done

nothing but destroy not only a country but all its hope of the people until the military moves, nothing is going to get done. hopefully we are getting closer because a few defections just started in the last couple of weeks. >> yeah, i completely agree with you. i think the military's a big factor. there was one defection over the weekend. i think that the concern, though, is the fact russia continues to give money and cuba, too. cuba is providing intelligence services as well. that's a little bit scary. >> it doesn't matter if you change the politician. it's the ideas, that's the crisis here, the ideas that have to change. john, i got to tell you, you say the problem isn't socialism? that is the problem. venezuela was booming before chavez and maduro came to town with their 21st century socialism. we see it time and time again, especially latin america, the more socialist ultimately the more starvation and in venezuela literally, chaos in the streets and they are eating pets. that's what 21st century -- david: to kristina's point, the cubans have been there for a

long time, ever since chavez back over a dozen years ago. they are shadowing the military in just about everything they do. they are telling them look, we have been in power 60 years, you can do it here in venezuela, too. i'm not saying it won't happen. i pray that it does, that this guy maduro is gone but it will take a lot of work. gang, thank you very much. first democrats proposed taking even more of our hard-earned money. now they want to tell companies how to manage their operations. does that make any sense? that's 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...

..

there's brushing...and there's oral-b power brushing. oral-b just cleans better. even my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada. oral-b. brush like a pro.

david: the u.s. senate finance committee invited five different drug companies to testify about drug prices. keep it tuned to fox business for more. chuck schumer is teaming up with bernie sanders in support of

corporations limiting stock buybacks? >> as my nanny used to say -- these two people have been on this earth 145 years. 92 of the years in politics. not one hour in business. yet they are trying to tell major corporations with what do with their own profit. i am not the biggest believer in stock buybacks. i have seen a lot of companies lose money buying high and losing money. but get out of the way. the greatness of this country is the freedom of the companies, small, middle and big business. they want to get their greasy hands into everything that moves and breathes. it's got to stop. >> from 2008 to 2017.

53% of profits from s & p companies was spent for buybacks. on the flipside, who are we or politicians to tell owners of capital how to distribute the capital. if they saw another way to be more productive or profitable they would. these politicians are pushing companies to fay higher wages. >> they are pushing for controls. just hands off. get your greasy, grimy hands off these companies. they have no respect for private property. it has disastrous affects. five years ago schumer pushed forward credit card reform.

the net effect was less credit card availability for especially people at the lowered end. >> i never heard more references to greasy, grimy hands than i have on this show. i can't say it on air. i agree with most of of america that has a brain. i wish we could all go on vacation. when pensions are not full and they are under funded, they have a provision that you have to fund those pensions first before you do stock buybacks. that's a good me sure. ed the rest much it -- the rest of it, though, i'm with the rest of the panel. david: if you think fascism is too big a word. look at the way companies manage

their own affairs, that's the economic definition of fascism. that does it for "bulls and bears," thanks for joining us. reporter: vast protests in venezuela. thousands taking to the streets to protest the maduro regime. president trump says u.s. military intervention is still an option. caravans making their way north. u.s. troops heading south. as law makers in washington don't afare closer to a national security deal. president trump is preparing for his state of the union address. we'll find out if the he's any closer to