thanks so much for watching "strange inheritance."' and remember -- you can't take it with you. ♪ bulls & bears with david asman starts right now. president trump: a very strong consideration to having people after a 20-day period because again you're not allowed legally to hold them for more than that. we will move them into sam nunberg cities. david: the border battle heat ing up as president trump targets sanctuary cities in his immigration push and now saying he's giving strong considerations to placing illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities only. hi, everybody this is bulls & bears thanks for joining us i'm david asman, joining me lauren simonetti, adam lashinsky, gary b. smith and our good friend anthony scaramucci. well the president says if democrats don't want to help out on immigration then let sanctuary cities take in illegal immigrants listen.

president trump: california certainly is always saying well we want more people and we want more people in their sanctuary cities well we can give them a lot, we can give them an unlimited supply and see if they're so happy. they say we have open arms let's see if they have open arms. david: adam, you live in a sanctuary city, san francisco what do you make of what the president is saying? >> i do so i have a few thoughts. first is it's a particularly pretty thing for the president of the united states to talk about a serious topic like this in that way. now i know he's frustrated a lot of people are frustrated and he wants to pick on a city like san francisco which has a general policy that we should be welcom ing to people and that we should do everything we can to help these people. his comments are in no way suggesting of being helpful or welcoming in any way, so as i said, he's just being petty. >> so respectfully i'll take

the other side of that as much as i like adam, i actually don't think he's being petty he's signaling the way he does with his communication skills to point out the problem and the potential hipocracy of actually having a sanctuary city. at the end of the day, there is legal and illegal immigration and the nonsense that we have, a notion in our country where we're going to be accepting illegal immigration, i don't think it's fair to the existing citizens and one of the reasons why the president's approval rating with the hispanic american community above 52% is that they really feel the people in line doing this fairly and judiciously with the process are the people that should be made citizens. so i think he's right and i think he's making a statement and i think he's also shedding a light on some liberal hipocracy. >> and maybe calling out democrats in the sense that you're 100 days now in the house majority and some criticism at the retreat was what is the democratic strategy on the border. they have yet to have a cohesive

strategy as we line up for 2020 what is that? do you know, anthony? >> well i think the strategy has been let's go back before the mid-terms he was ready to cut a dreamer's act he just wantedded the wall and some more border security and they panicked out of that situation because they didn't want to cut that dreams about deal prior to the mid-terms so they figured they would lose the house, they tried to use identity politics labeling as a racist but he's actually not a racist and if you look at the unemployment numbers for the african american community, the main reason why they pes reassures low as they hasselberg to do with what he did at the border he took 85% of the illegal immigrants off the charts at the border and i don't understand why that's a big deal >> i want to get back in but i know gary wants to talk first. >> go ahead. >> [laughter] thanks, adam. great co-moderator in fact i was going to ask you a question, so the first responding, i guess

anthony kind of made this point a little bit. i don't think it's unfair or pay for a president to go against an illegal act which you would agree that the immigrants by definition, illegal immigrants is an illegal act but i want to throw a question back to you because i've been studying this economically and not social or society or anything like that but immigrants illegal or otherwise have a net positive to our economy. for example, they contribute almost 17, no, 13 billion a year to social security that they can't get, but my question to you is because you're in san francisco, do you see any effect s positive or negative either personally or what you read in the chronicle of these illegal immigrants, that gets right down to the bottom line i think. >> well, so i'll answer you. i will. the issue here, this is

political. i think for the president to suggest a specific policy, which is probably illegal, you know, anthony said he's making a communications point. that is the point. that's all he's making is a communications point because the president shouldn't suggest oh, well we're going to take these people and we're going to punish some communities whose policies i don't like we'll send them there. gary to answer your question, i mean, anecdotally, san francisco itself does not have a big problem with illegal immigration the illegal migrants are in places like the central valley where they're working on farms and what not so this is really in my city at least, my impression is it's a political issue. this is not an economic issue. david: well it's a political issue for years let's face it that's the bottom line but more than that, i mean, to bring up the legal issue, sanctuary cities are violating federal laws. hold on a second. by definition, sanctuary cities are violating federal law. we have federal statutes against

the criminal behavior of illegal immigrants that come in here and sanctuary cities saying they don't apply. it's as if alabama was to say, you know, we decide that we're going to have a sanctuary city for segregation. there's a federal law that prevents that from happening but they say no we want to do that. i mean, you would be against that adam wouldn't you? >> that's the part i forgot to address. i agree. it's this form of civil disobedience if you will. david: it's breaking the law. >> david? i disagree that is not how this nation is built. the nation is not built that federal law is the, we're not, we're a federation of states but the states have rights, that's why we're a federalist society and not like i say a kingdom ruled by a monarchy as the

president. david: hold on a second i've got to jump in because every constitutional scholar would tell you that federal law trumps state law. understand we're a republic and that's a great thing but federal law does trump state law. >> well we're in disagreement. >> i happen to agree with david the federal government has the right where there is federal law to enforce it, and i wish that we could reach an agreement on this. the response is not for the president to suggest in response something that's illegal and also petty with his comments. it's not constructive. >> but i guess the only thing i want to ask adam is that you said it was punishing them. if they have a law that is allowing for sanctuary cities and repeatedly the mayor and the governor said we welcome all of these people, how is that punishing them if on the books and records of the state and the city is the acceptance of these

illegals? >> the solution to the crisis at the border right now is not to funnel more people to a city several hundred miles north of the border. that's confusing matters, and it's not helpful. david: so what is helpful? >> there's all sorts of things that would be helpful. i'll tell you another thing. david: a wall? >> no give you an example. cutting off hundreds of millions of dollars to the countries where the problem is beginning, not mexico, i'm talking about el salvador, guatemala and honduras , that's not helpful, so -- >> i do agree with that. >> go ahead. >> anthony i'm curious why you do agree with cutting off aid to those countries. >> no not cutting off aid i think the president is making a mistake on that actually. i think he's got to fund those countries consistent with the good neighbor policy that started with franklin roosevelt and it's very simple. that aid will prevent migration. the same way, but it really has if you look at the statistics we

don't have enough time on this television show but the aid down -- >> we could double it. >> that's something actually david urban, myself a lot of friends of the president. david: i've got to disagree i covered the region for a while and i saw all of that aid money going into the pockets and swiss bank accounts of the corrupt officials that control those governments let's face it and the money is stolen, a lot of the money that goes into these aid programs is stolen. >> that too but there could be better scoring on it now david than 10 or 15 years ago but it's a complicated problem but the president is making a point we have to reduce illegal immigration, it's better for the economy and better for u.s. citizens. >> and he's playing hard ball with the aid situation, if you look at the borders it's overwhelmed, the border agents can't handle the influx of the detention centers can't handle it so in a sense he's saying you can't deal with it we're just going to, we'll send them to the sanctuary cities because apparently you're more welcoming than everybody else in a sense for illegal immigrants so you

deal with getting overwhelmed. >> exactly and there's one other point i want to make. everyone here on this panel, to be quite honest, does not feel or touch or probably effect it on a daily basis by illegal immigrants. i think adam lives on that cross -curvy street where the townhomes, they never sees an illegal immigrant so i feel for those cities on the border and in texas, that do have the influx of illegal immigrants, and the schools and crime are affected. you even alluded to it. >> i was trying to make that point. >> so it's easy for you to say oh, let's be welcome and do all of this stuff. >> [laughter] >> well, i think it would be helpful if more americans said let's be welcome and let's have a welcoming attitude and i think the president is having just the opposite effect right now. david: but adam, we haven't had an influx of illegal immigration

in this country for decades like we're having right now. i mean, this is an emergency at the border, so you can't just say okay, even more people come in, right? >> well, and i'm not suggesting that. i'm suggesting that the president's comments are not helpful to what is a very real problem. david: that's got to be the last word well call it a corporate tax fight, walmart mimicking elizabeth warren by blasting amazon over its zero federal tax payments. will it give elizabeth warren's new profit tax, more momentum, that's next. >> ♪ ♪ who's idea was this?

♪ ♪ run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise.

it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

(speaking in foreign language) i'm sorry i don't understand... ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone

david: well mart's slamming amazon with a tweet. "hey retail competitors out there, you know who you are, how about paying your taxes." that of course a reference to elizabeth warren calling out amazon for paying zero federal corporate taxes last year. now warren says that's why her new proposed corporate profit tax, and america's largest companies, is needed doubling down on it last night. listen. >> we've got a corporate tax rate, but as you know, the thing has just been lobbied to death. its full of loopholes and breaks and special deals, so that a

company, like amazon, made $10 billion in profits, can walk away paying nothing in taxes. that's just not fair. think of all of the people out there today who are paying their taxes. david: by the way there is a new study out showing at least 60 companies have reported federal tax rates for 2018 that have amounted to effectively zero, so does elizabeth warren have a point? what do you think? >> well she has a point, but it's kind of the wrong point, if you will. she has many points of which we can all classify into the populous and the rich it's all part of the same general argument and elizabeth warren thinks because amazon pays no taxes, that allows jeff bezos to have a giant yacht, like he's walking around like daddy war bucks. that's not the way the tax system works. i would rather see more corporations to be honest with you, pay no taxes. we just recently brought the corporate rate in line with the

rest of the world. in fact the most detrimental tax we have in america is the corporate tax. people are under the misconception that high corporate tax rates are good when you have a high corporate tax rate do you know who gets punished? the workers at the company, the growth of the company, the people that are consumers of the company, because and amazon and all they're going to do is pass that higher cost in the form of taxes on to either less growth, less distribution center, higher costs, or less efficient system. and amazon and bezos don't really care what the tax rate is personally. that's where elizabeth warren is confusing things. >> and i think senator warren forgets the fact that capital is mobile. she says this plan, over a decade, would bring in $1 trillion, but are these companies still operating here in the u.s. in 10 years if they have to pay higher taxes because there's always a way to wiggle out of that. >> well i don't want to be in

violent agreement with everybody but the only thing i think will end up happening which is almost like an alternative minimum tax for corporations not necessarily a profit tax but they may get hit with okay you pay zero taxes but you do a ton of business in the u.s. , you may get hit with a corporate amt, which again i'm worried about because remember taxes are a price for services, and if you really understand taxation, you're double taxing corporations but i am fearful that could happen. >> what's interesting is we're passing up an opportunity to comment on politics here which is why is walmart aligning itself with elizabeth warren now because we know the answer because they have an opportunity to take a shot at amazon, and where i agree with everyone is that what she's ignoring what this argument ignores is that the employees of amazon and the investors in amazon they absolutely pay taxes whether it's income taxes or corporate taxes. that said, we should be able to agree that loopholes are ways for companies and others to

cheat, who probably will be better to reduce the loopholes so that everyone gets treated fairly and when i say everyone i mean walmart and amazon at the same time. and by the way lauren simonetti not going anywhere. they are going to continue to operate in the united states no matter what. david: but if you're taking advantage of a loophole by definition you're not cheating. you're taking advantage of a loophole it's legal. i would say this is a perfect excuse for a flat tax. get rid of all of the deductions make sure everybody pays a lower rate, but a flat tax that everybody pays you can't get rid of it. deductions are eliminated and everybody is on the same. what do you think of that? >> that would be the best and simplest cleanest thing to do. >> or what if you give companies a tax break if they pay their workers more? you know, amazon said to walmart basically one up we're doing $15 an hour, you do 16, you do 17 what if you get a tax break for doing that? >> david you're suggesting we drain the swamp i think is what you're saying. david: you're right.

>> i want to jump in with one point though that lauren made about capital being mobile. adam you said that amazon is going to stay here. i question why. why do they physically have to be here? they can operate the distribution centers remotely. basically, this is an i-t company that could operate anywhere in the world all over the internet. they don't have to be out there physically driving the trucks. they can sub that out. this is a company that could go anywhere, adam. >> well but so they've shown you how they want to do business rather than doing what you're suggesting they put their distribution centers closer to their customers so they can be quicker they want to control that, they are controlling that. by the way -- >> i agree the distribution centers have to be here but the corporate headquarters and where they pay tax from could be anywhere. basically this is an intellectual property company, they could be in taiwan, they could be in australia they don't have to be here as long as the internet speed is fast enough.

>> things have to get pretty bad before they start doing that type of business from taiwan. >> but elizabeth warren. david: and before donald trump came in remember, we had the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and that's why companies were relocating, going out to ireland and everywhere else and now they're coming back thank goodness. well democrats railing against attorney general william barr for claims of spying by the fbi but what could we learn from another investigation we'll be asking the wall street journal's kimberly strossel, she is next. did you know with vanishing deductible, you can earn $100 off your deductible for every year of safe driving? sing that. ♪ vanishing deductible, you can... ♪ ♪ earn $100... ♪ earn $100 off... ♪ off your deductible. ♪ deductible. ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ ♪ for every-- for every-- ♪ ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ what are you-- what key are you in? "e." no, no, go to "g." "g" will be too high. not for me.

♪ vanishing deductible. oh, gosh. sweet, sweet. (vo) ♪ i know what you're thinking. electric, it's not for you. and, you're probably right. electric just doesn't have enough range. it will never survive the winter. charging stations? good luck finding one of those. so, maybe an electric car isn't for you after all. or, is it? ♪ rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe

rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr

>> well i thought it was both stunning and scary. i was amazed at that and rather disappointed that the attorney general would say such a thing, that you know the term spying has all kinds of negative connotations. david: imagine, former director of national intel, james clapper , joining democrats in

questioning attorney general barr's credibility as we await the release of the full mueller report, wall street journal editorial board member kimberley strassel writing today in the op-ed, "mr. barr didn't merely refuse to recuse, he's made clear he plans to plum the fbi's actions thoroughly." now that makes him a threat, number one, to everyone, who participated in these abuses and it's why the liberal media establishment, they are stunned and scared that accountability has returned to the justice department, and kim joins us now , great to see you. what are the answers you're hoping to get from barr's investigation? >> oh, so many things and one of the things that i think should be very encouraging to everyone who cares about this is if you listened to bill barr in his testimony both to the house and the senate this week, it's clear, he knows where some of the bodies are buried and where he's supposed to be looking, so that includes questions for instance about as he mentioned

whether or not the spying that did happen, whether it was appropriate, whether or not there was also in addition unauthorized spying of the campaign, when did this actually begin, because the fbi's whole origin story and the reason for why it claims it began this has never really held up and never been very strong and then who were all the players and how did they justify these actions? >> kimberly i have a question for you related to the media. why do you in your experience as a journalist, why are they not examining more carefully what happened? this is the media "represent" the fourth estate and they're supposed to hand check against this type of potential nefarious activity? why have they pulled themselves back so strongly? >> you could not say that more clearly and i think it's why you see so much public distrust in the media right now, because they are meant to be a check on government power and in every time in the past if you look

they have been highly skeptical of government surveillance, government abuse of power and suddenly not here and the only answer that you can get is they really dislike this administration and so they have been rooting for the fbi they were hoping for collusion finding from special counsel robert mueller, they're disappointed now and they're embarrassed i mean they should be embarrassed frankly, and so they're attempting keep this going and get rid of the one guy , bill barr, whose likely to prove them even more wrong. >> and kimberly what are democrats going to do with the information that they eventually get which is any day now from the mueller report? part of me wants to say why didn't they wait for that report to come out but what did they do with that information? do you think as nancy pelosi has suggested that impeachment comes back in a big way as a possibility? >> well look, i think what they're doing right now is desperately hoping they are going to be able to make some lemonade out of paper machet

lemons because they didn't get what they wanted from this report. they didn't get collusion, and bill barr is not pursuing obstruction, so they are going to mind this thing for any other accusations that were made against the trump campaign, even if robert mueller didn't find them to be sound even if they didn't go anywhere, they're going to look for anything that robert mueller put in there, saying that he thought might have weighed in favor of obstruction versus weighing against an obstruction charge, and then they're going to put that out this why by the way it was so smart that bill barr is releasing this report to everyone at the same time. the congress and the public. they can make their own judgments. >> kim this is adam lashinsky with fortune magazine in san francisco. i want to say i'm a huge fan of your work even when i don't agree with you i'm going to ask you slightly less of a softball question than the one anthony asked you. you use "they" in talking about the media, they in talking about the democrats. what do you think we as a country should do to get to a

point where we're altogether, given that this investigation won't get us there? >> well but isn't that the shame though, adam, that this investigation isn't getting us there? because remember, that's what we were told this investigation was supposed to be about, that we gave special counsel robert mueller two full years and absolute freedom to look at every one of these charges and he came back and said there was no there there on the collusion and that was supposed to draw a line under it, so it hasn't and i all right fortunately think the only thing that may get us there is another election in the end where people are allowed to vote at the ballot box for whether or not they feel that democrats right now are actually representing them, passing legislation, trying to work with an administration, or whether they're just going to continue pushing a narrative that they think is helpful in terms of their opponent but is not doing much for the country. >> i'm with you on the need for

another election couldn't agree more. go ahead, gary i'm sorry. >> no mats okay while adam is waving the flag, there seems to be an under current here that somehow barr and the fbi are totally independent agencies that barr shouldn't work for the president and the fbi is not under him and in any corporation as i'm sure you know if jack welch was at ge, and he thought there was shenanigans in finance he would have his legal department investigate finance. why is there this under current that barr can't look at the fbi? they all report to trump and it's all within his domain. >> well total scandal is that it has taken this long to look at the fbi. you know and this is one of the under reported stories here is that there has been no accountability and that things were engineered to make sure there was no the ability for so long. remember the push to make jeff

sessions recuse himself? that was because nobody wanted an outsider taking a look at what the fbi was doing. you know, look at the push for the special counsel. that has the effect for two full years of freezing any questions, because remember, any time anyone wanted to ask anything, including in congress or in the white house, well what was the fbi doing here? we were told we couldn't see the documents, you couldn't ask witnesses those questions, because it might interfere with special counsel mueller's report , so its taken too long to get to this point and as bill barr said he has an absolute obligation as attorney general. david: kim i have to ask one final question please. the russia investigation was filled with so many people that hated people from the beginning, the peter strzok people, the bruce ohr people, was it from the beginning from the get go the russia investigation, just a hit job on trump? >> i think it's a lot more complicated than that, david. i think it was basically some of the first examples of trump derangement syndrome more than

anything else, and an ego mania at the fbi at the very top that they thought they were going to rescue the country from. david: kim strassel one thing we share is deep admiration for your work. thanks very much for being here, well democrat divide fueled by the far left killing a potential bipartisan budget deal, we're going to tell you what the president is saying about that right now. i'm working to keep the fire going for another 150 years. ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪ you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else.

why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.

you can barely feel. craftsmanship and technology that have made the rx the leading luxury suv of all time. lease the 2019 rx 350 for $409 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835,

because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more. david: president trump rolling out a grand budget deal this coming after left ring revolt in the democratic party torpedoed a democrat bill to stop over $100 billion in future spending cuts and the president tweeting out, "house democrats want to re negotiate a $2 trillion spending increase, but can't even pass their own plan. we can't afford it anyway and it is not happening." well with the democrats divided how will we ever see a bipartisan budget deal? >> i don't think we do.

whose the speaker of the house? it doesn't seem like it nancy pelosi, there's so much in- fighting right now in the democratic party they're getting in each other's ways. i don't see how this one pans out. nancy pelosi said recently, you know what? we can reach something bipartisan, a compromise when it comes to lowering the price of prescription drugs, to infrastructure, but i don't even think those softballs can be done between the fighting in that party and then the fighting with republicans. >> well i'll tell you what i think you're absolutely right, lauren. i think the bigger question is do we even want a deal to be honest? you know, everyone on this panel knows it any deal is going to come with even bigger deficits. deficits are growing now exponentially. all politicians want to do either party is spend more. the only way to get any kind of deal is if both sides decide oh, we'll spend a lot more. this country is going to go down the rabbit hole with increase

entitlement spending no one is tackling that i'd rather see no budget resolution and have continuing resolutions all along to see that spending doesn't increase. >> gary your way of thinking is what has led the british into "the situation" that they are. we should always want a deal, even a bad deal, the politicians are elected representatives get is better than no deal. lauren? i would suggest to you that although she can't get everything right, nancy pelosi is probably the best negotiator in washington right now. certainly better than some guy who wrote a book about deal making. she'll get her caucus in shape. david: there's a guy here who works for the guy who wrote the book on deal making. >> here is the problem with the whole thing is that we have no 25 year plan to right size all this stuff so we can't get a two minute plan done or a bipartisan deal, but more importantly if we really care about the united states, no 25 year plan for

infrastructure, right sizing the entitlements, industrial policy plan, education plans, for the chinese, david, that's a 25 years is like 25 seconds. they think in centuries and so the united states better wake up , and better dial back the partisan nonsense, and come together on some things. david: although i'm with gary b. on no deal is better than a bad deal. i think a bad deal is what drags down the economy and frankly, the markets when there's no deal when you have the grid lock it works out pretty well. the one thing i'd give you on nancy pelosi, adam is that at least she's against medicare for all. she came out very strongly against medicare for all saying $32 trillion, doubling the budget, is too much for this thing, so she is pushing back a little bit. >> she does things like that repeatedly david that she thinks are best for the party and the country and she's done it more than once. >> what's separating democrats on this budget is $33 billion, that the moral left democrats in the party want more money to be

spent on non-defense, than spent on defense and it's almost like this group of democrats just cannot get behind our military and beefing it up. does that upset anybody? >> i want to jump in though, lauren makes a good point that military we're degrading our military and we will continue to do so, especially if a democrat gets elected president. on anthony's point i don't think we need a 25 year plan. no one can look out 25 years. china couldn't look out 25 years ago to where they are now. what we need to do is redefine the role of government. should we protect our borders, adjudicate our claims and stay the heck out of the way? now we want the government to do everything for us and that's just that's going the wrong-way. >> so gary just google the beijing plan 2049 which is the anniversary of the revolution, they wrote that plan about 40 years ago and they are right on track to where they want to go,

so they do think in very very long units of time there, and they are building tons of infrastructure at a time when our infrastructure is crumbling, and anybody that's really studying ai knows that they have a 25-year investment plan in ai. >> anthony, have we instructed the government, if we instructed the government to build our infrastructure, we'll turn out just like every other huge got project from the gig big to the parking lot at the kennedy center. way over budget, way over time. the last thing i want to do is trust government to help build our infrastructure. david: very quickly. you've got 10 seconds. >> it's wildly over expensive but unbelievable positives despite the corruption et cetera we need infrastructure, gary. we got to get it done. david: god knows we don't need to give the government more money than they've already got. >> well the president had a public private partnership plan in place and they nixed it. david: i hear the music we've got to go. the streaming war is heating up as disney enters, the stock

soaring to a new record high leaving competitors in the dust disney also celebrating the release of a new star wars trailer have you seen it? trailer have you seen it? we'll play six months, six pushups ready. up. up. down. down. ah ah! that's one. up. that's two. down. down. get down, get down. you can earn $100 off your deductiblee, for every year of safe driving? sing that. ♪ vanishing deductible, you can... ♪ ♪ earn $100... ♪ earn $100 off... ♪ off your deductible. ♪ deductible. ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ ♪ for every-- for every-- ♪ ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ what are you-- what key are you in? "e." no, no, go to "g." "g" will be too high. not for me. ♪ vanishing deductible. oh, gosh. sweet, sweet. 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales.

all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ ) did you eat all of your treats? the day we'll finally get something done. ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone

david: disney surging to record highs today up closing up more

than 11.5% after officially announcing new details of its streaming service, disney plus, the mouse house revealing the service launching in november costing 6.99 a month about half the cost of a netflix subscription. disney is bringing all properties under this roof and has already confirmed there's going to be a large amount of original content as well, so should netflix and other stream ing giants be worried? what do you think, gang? >> well, they absolutely should be worried. i was at the disney investor event yesterday in burbank, california david and it was a show of force. they basically said we're putting all of the efforts of this giant company into this new app, disney plus. that means all the new things we're working on and almost as importantly all of the old things we've already got like every star wars movie every disney animated classic going back to snow white, and that obviously spooked investors in netflix today. >> well i guess the thing i would want to ask disney though is where is that price going so

at 6.99 i get the enticement but are they able to keep it at 6.99 and what does it say for all of us will we have streaming apps that are 15 or $20 a piece? david: adding up to cable. >> that's what we were talking about at the break so i love the idea i'm a huge fan of disney i should also point out that i own disney personally but i am worried about like how this model is going to, would in the future for the consumer. >> they got to figure it out that 6.99 price is the teaser price but when you look at demand for what they have, pre- sales for the new avengers movie at an all-time high and today this was released let's play the trailer for star wars. >> [triumphant music playing]

>> a christmas release of another star wars. they have the eyeballs the demand is there i think is a home run. >> i'm paying 15.99 to get everything out i'll pay up to $20 on ebay for this subscription. >> [laughter] >> well here is the thing. other than the marvel movies, this is basically for families with kids. i don't see how they're going to tackle netflix so if you take that out and they say they're going to have all of this original content now they're competing directly with the amazon primes and the netflix which is a huge head start. i understand disney is out there but they pes rereally going to be playing netflix's ballpark.

i think this is going to be a fair fight. i'm not so certain this is a huge success. >> i'll agree with you on one point here, gary, bob iger says he's done in 2021 and they don't expect disney plus to be profitable. >> until he gets to 2021. >> so it is leaving that three year window. david: may not be but there are a lot of people that have netflix who do have kids, millions of people, and i can imagine a lot of them leaving netflix. it's double the price of disney. >> what about billy d. williams has anybody mentioned the fact that he's coming back? david: i know, it's going to be huge. all right, well one of the hottest ipo's of the year is now out with a big warning, for potential investors should you still buy in? we'll debate that, coming next.

run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more. (vo) ♪ i know what you're thinking. run with us. electric, it's not for you. and, you're probably right. electric just doesn't have enough range. it will never survive the winter. charging stations? good luck finding one of those. so, maybe an electric car isn't for you after all. or, is it? ♪ when it comes to type 2 diabetes, are you thinking about your heart? well, i'm managing my a1c,

so i should be all set. right. actually, you're still at risk for a fatal heart attack or stroke. even if i'm taking heart medicine, like statins or blood thinners? yep! that's why i asked my doctor what else i could do... she told me about jardiance. that's right. jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event for adults who have type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. that's why the american diabetes association recommends the active ingredient in jardiance. and it lowers a1c? yeah- with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening, bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar.

so, what do you think? now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c. ask your doctor about jardiance today. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief...

what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ >> i'll give you back, i'm going to put together an etf of all the companies that have never made a profit and will never make a profit.

it should be gang busters, right? david: well, and amazon would be top of the list. go ahead, gang. >> well, you know, the thing about uber that is shocking, they say they're going to have a hundred billion dollar valuation, but their main business, the business -- which is ride hailing -- isn't growing. i find that completely perplexing. we have a bona fide financial expert on the show, but i wouldn't. >> if you look at the numbers, what is it, 91 million users, it's popular. 1.5 billion trips in the fourth quarter. there is demand, and they have diversified, and that's how they can differentiate himselfs from the disaster that is lyft because they have the freight business, bikes, etc. that gives me some hope that maybe -- david: anthony, you look at what's happened with lyft, lyft has been doing terribly. >> well, the problem is, is you're paying yourself a minimum wage, and you're deteriorating

and depreciating your car while you're driving for them. so the model doesn't really work. it's a cool service. it's very different from amazon. the reason why they elected not to make money is that they were growing their footprint to be the colossal size they are today. so it's going to be very hard -- to adam's point, very hard to grow from where they are at this second. david: so, adam, i'm just curious, is anybody thinking of getting into this business after this? they see what's happened with lyft, there's a lot of pessimism about uber. could this be the end of the ride-sharing movement? >> well, i mean, i think lauren made a good point. there is a business there, it's just, number one, not a particularly good business. and we don't know how it's going to shake out. i've thought for years that at some point lyft and uber in the united states were going to very quietly say, okay, it's time to raise prices a lot, because people really love our service. they obviously can't have that conversation directly, but that could happen, and that could push them both into

profitability. >> well, there is a solution to this though. they face, i think -- i forget who said it, maybe anthony -- they face these wage costs on the one end, they face the capital costs on the other end. they, obviously, don't own the cars. the only solution long term, and i think they're decades away from it although i know they're exploring it, self-driving cars. that's the only way you're going to correct one to have two problems they have. david: before we go, anthony, you've got a big event coming up, the salt conference in las vegas. you pioneered this conference. fox business is going to be there live to cover this. we're very happy to be there. tell us about what we can expect. >> it's our tenth anniversary. we tray to bring an eclectic mix, policymakers, athletes, artificial intelligence -- adam was there one year. >> book authors. [laughter] >> apple book, which was adam's book about apple. and so for us, we're super excited. but i think one of the things

i'm very excited about is i'll be interviewing general kelly, white house chief of staff, it'll be a footnote of my obituary, or perhaps the headline, that he fired me from the white house -- david: how did you get him in there? >> i called him up -- david: had you spoken to him since you were fired? >> i hadn't, no. i said i want you to speak at my conference, we had a three-hour lunch, and we're actually developing a pretty good relationship. there's a big lesson -- >> what'd you two talk about at lunch? >> that would be off the record. [laughter] adam, i'm learning the difference between on and off the record at this late stage of my career, imagine that. [laughter] >> did you wine and dine him in order for him to say yes? >> no, no, we were having bologna sandwiches. david: i don't believe that. >> it was probably like a grilled wrap or manager like that. but at the end of the day, i'll be interviewing general kelly at the salt conference. david: nikki haley -- >> susan rice, valerie jarrett. we try to make it bipartisan. we've got a lot of fun people to

talk to including the former head of google who's running a big artificial intelligence project in china. so it'll be a lot of fun, and i'm super excited to have both charlie gasparino and liz claman representing fox. david: and we're going to be covering it from stem to stern, you also have one of our people, one of our panelists, robert wolf there. >> yeah, he's a great guy. robert and i are teamed up in a research project, so we had steve me -- steve moore on our faculty for a while. david: every year there seems to be one thing people are talking about. last year, i think it was robotics. what do you think it's going to be this year? >> i think the human longevity project, i think that panel discussion will be very enlightening. there are simple things you can do today to lengthen your telemeres -- telemeres? >> people like me can't afford anything short, you realize that -- david: so you're going to live

to be over 100? >> i'm shooting, just to defy all my haters. expecting to have my hair the entire time. david: may 7th is when it begins, you don't want to miss (announcer) the following is a paid presentation for prostagenix, brought to you by prostatereport.com. (upbeat music) ♪ hi, this is larry king. over 30 million men in america have prostrate problems. i know, i was one of them. and all these natural prostate supplements like the ones i have here in front of me are everywhere. drugstores, health food stores, on the internet, and all over tv, selling millions of bottles every year.