go to cyberguy. >> thank you, kurt. >> the cyberguy. crazy stuff. thanks for joining us on a very busy news day. >> "bulls & bears" starts right now. >> see you tomorrow. ♪ david: china trade talks are now back on for later this week. but markets tumbling today as they digest the reality of trump's new tariff threats that go into effect on friday. the major averages tumbling 2% with the dow closing down 473 points. will it all be worth it? hi, everybody. this is "bulls & bears." thanks for watching. i'm david asman. joining me is christina, carol roth, joy layfield and governor mike huckabee. china's top trade o enscroi envs heading to d.c. let's go to edward lawrence at

the white house. where do things stand right snow. >> the official registry notice is being formalized so that the u.s. trade representatives office can add that on the good coming into the united states, raising tariffs from 10% to 25%, we're talking about inflatable rafts, plywood, raw silk. they're working on adding 25% tariffs of about everything else that china imports into the united states. the president says that's $325 billion more of stuff coming here. the chinese trade delegation coming on thursday and friday of this week. the vice premier is going to be the lead in that. now it's an interesting note. he's not going to have the title this time of special envoy for president xi jinping. that means he speaks for the chinese president. he had that title the last several rounds of face-to-face meeting.

instead coming a as the lead negotiator. now a spokesman for the chinese foreign minister says it's the u.s. that needs to meet china halfway. >> translator: we always believe that mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit are the premise and basis for reaching an agreement. adding tariffs will not solve any problems. what i need to clarify here is that the negotiation itself is a process of discussion and it is normal for the two sides to have differences. >> and this is the same kind of language the chinese usinged at the end of last year when there was another trade impasse. republican senators on capitol hill supporting the president. even some democrats saying we have to stand up to the chinese. here's senator chuck schumer. listen. >> the bottom line is, china will take advantage of us decade in decade out unless we're strong with them. that's what we have to do. afternoon it will help america in the long run. >> and some democrats wanting to be president, senato senator elh

warren taking a different approach. >> tariff policy by tweet does not work. we actually need a comprehensive trade policy and one that doesn't favor a handful of multinational corporations. >> and the u.s. trade representative office, robert lighlighthizer told me that the president is willing to do what he needs to do in order to get a full good trade deal with the chinese. back to you guys. david: thank you very much. so much average americans haven't really felt the brunt of the tariffs currently in place on chinese imports. but if a deal isn't reached by friday and the president makes good on his threat to bump up tariffs to 25%, this costs will be passed down to american businesss and consumers. let's bring steve moo into the picture to talk about this. is it worth it? >> i think that the market overreacted today from some of the verbal wars now between trump and beijing leaders.

i do think in the end of the day they're going to get a deal. they're not that far apart, according to my sources at the white house. trump gets frustrated that beijing has not bent more. but you know, paint me a skeptical that the 25% tariff is going to come through. you know when trump engages in deal making and negotiating he uses leverage. he thinks this tariff is leverage. but i don't think he's going to pull the trigger. david: i don't like tariffs, you don't like tariffs. the president doesn't like tariffs but i don't like surgery either. but sometimes you got to have a surgical operation to make you feel better. i'm glad the president is pushing back on china that's bullied us for a generation, cheated like crazy, stolen intellectual property. don't you think it's time that we stuck it in their face and said we're as mad as you know what when' ear not going t and e

it anymore. >> you're exactly right. i remember when you ran for president you were the canary on the coal mine on this issue. i think that it is time to get. >> you saw where it got me too, steve. here i sit on television. >> you're right. you have to get very tough with china. i talk with the trade negotiators. they get very frustrated, dawn day doing one thing and the next day something opposite. trump likes a bull market, a stronger economy. and there are cooler heads that know that a trade war would be negative for china but hurt the u.s. as well. >> hey were steve. i am a recovering investment banker and i love having tough negotiations as much as the next person but i don't understand the tactic here. it seems to me that i.t. is really at the crux of the issue. certainly we know from the u.s.

side we're sick of china stealing the ip. china has been filing all types of patents and protecting ip. why aren't we taking the stance that you know what, if you're not going to enforce our ip, we here not going to do the same thing for you. and take a hard stance on ip that won't affect american consumers and small businesses but could be equally effective. >> the stealing by china is simply out of control right now. you have a situation where china is stealing 300, $400 billion a year. we can't continue with that kind of relationship. the problem is china keeps saying they're going to stop stealing but they don't. you're saying if you're not going to honor our ip we're not going to honor yours. >> exactly. >> they don't invent anything in china. everything is invented in silicone valley and boston

massachusetts. >> they've had a slew of pa pats lately. >> they're 1/100th as valuable as the patents that we have. we invent things and china is a copy cat technology. david, they are a centrally planned economy where the government is directing the investment capital, show me anywhere, anytime that that model has worked. >> i think maybe that's a little bit short-sided when you're talking about china in the near future. maybe you can think of how they got to this point. they stole it. david: quite a bit of it. >> let's agree on that. but if we're talking long term, look at the investments that china has been doing all across the globe. military as well. therefore we cannot just say defiantly that the united states has all of the cards in their hand. i think that is too simplistic. the other question is what about the agricultural sector that are

already feeling the tariffs. you see shifts towards brazil when buying soybeans. this could have a long term effect on that sector. >> i'll go back to what the governor was saying. this is the fight of our lifetime. we cannot back down to china. >> right. >> i want to have this fight now, not 10 or 15 years from now. the governor is from an agricultural state. they understand the stakes. people are willing to take short-ferm pain for the long-term gain of china -- look, i'm noll saying that china doesn't invent anything. they're active in all sorts of things like artificial intelligence and robotics. i'll place my money on silicone valley to come up with the big new things, not necessarily the chinese. >> steve, john here. is there a chance here that we're doing long-term structural damage to our country? christine mentioned the fact of the farmerers losing the soy ben

contracts. not this year. we're losing them forever. also the swift banking system is being challenged in europe and china as is the dollar reserve currency. is there a chance here that we are doing long-term structural damage to our country if that trade war continues? >> well, look, trade wars are bad things. we know that. i don't want a trade war. but i think the worst thing of all is for us to back down. trump has to get a good deal with the beijing government and he has to be strong. he has the country behind him. even the democrats are starting to sound like mike huckabee on china. i think trump is fighting the good fight. i think we have to come away with a victory. it has to involve china buying more of our products and honoring our intellectual property. i don't buy for one second that anything is going to replace the dollar as the world currency. the thrar is so strong now. i've heard that for 25 years.

i don't believe it, especially now when we have a good solid dollar. everybody in the world wants dollars. we cut taxes, we cut regulation. america is the country right now. david: steve, procedural question. it looks like we were close to some kind of a deal when at the last minute the chinese pulled out in terms of the way we were going to verify their changes in rules and regulations which we need to see. it looks now like the entire trade team, kudlow, mnuchin, lighthizer, they're all in agreement that unless they get on course the tariffs are going to kick in. am i right? >> it looks like it. the verification is the most important thing. you can't trust these people. if they won't agree to verification, you may see the tariffs. but in the long run i'm bullish on getting a good trade deal done with china and when that happens the market is going to go up 200 points. it's going to happen.

david: great to see you. please come back and see it soon, steve. >> thanks, david. >> david: breaking news, lyft reporting a huge miss on earnings after hours in its first quarterly report since going public. since that time the stock has been down big time. ashley webster standing by in the newsroom with more detail. >> hey there, david. the good news is that lyft reported better than expected sales. but it also recorded, as you say, a massive loss of $1.4 billion for the quarter. much of that loss was due to stock base compensation when the company went public on march 29. adjusting to that the company reported losses of 234 million wubucks or $9.02 a share. but the state loss shows a year over year improvement. this is a company that has a hard time making profits. hasn't seen it. may not for a while.

revenue is up 95% year over year. some of the other metrics the company reporting. it now has 20.5 active riders. that's up from 14 million a year ago, up 2 million from the last quarter. we're seeing growth there. revenue per active rider came in 37 bucks, up from $28 a year ago, also gaining ground. also we should point out the guidance pretty respectable. the company predicting 800 million revenue. both of those estimates beat expectations. late today we lerve that google's safe driving company is partnering with lyft to provide vehicles if its company in phoenix. this company said we don't know if we'll will be able to make a profit but they're showing growth in certain areas. and as people want to look

optimistically there are some things you can grab on. but it's a loss. david: it is. it went down big time but now it's trading a it will bit up after hours. searching for an immigration solution. the president just meeting with key members of his cabinet and senate republicans at the white house. we're live there next. we have an unsustainable crisis happening at our border. hundreds of people often apprehended at the same time, unable to continue to keep them, the catch and release and the loopholes in our laws have to be closed. and so we need democrats and republicans to work together to close these loopholes now and secure the border. that was the conversation we had today. ♪

david: democrats are finally waking up to the border crisis and president trump is trying to take advantage of their awakening convening a closed door meeting at the white house this afternoon with key members of his cabinet and select senators. so is the president finally in a position to get some kind of concession from democrat to fix our broken immigration system? for details we turn to fox news chief white house correspondent john roberts. it was a closed-door meeting but what can you tell us about what went on. >> there were 12 republican

senators assembled in the cabinet room to talk with the president about the latest proposals. it's fortuitous that you asked me to come on. i just had a briefing with a senior official at what was talked about in the room. broadly there were six goals that the white house wants to address. let's pus them up on the screen for you. they want to fully secure the border, protect american wages, retain the best and the brightest minds in the world, unify families, protect labor and critical industries and preserve humanitarian values. there are two big component to the plan. a border security bill to modernize points of entry, build a wall and secure the border and the second is a merit based immigration system. in order to come up with the merit based system they were looking at systems in place in canada, japan and singapore where people of higher skill are the ones who are taken into the

country. basically what the white house wants to do is make sure that in the future the united states does not bring in low-skilled workers. they want to make sure that the system raises wages. they want to keep the number of legal immigrants the same. they want to change the composition of who comes into the country. no timetable yet for legislation to revamp the legal immigration system. it could be weeks or months. what the white house wants to do is to find a set of principles that they've agreed on and slis it feedback from congress. i'm told that the folks in the room, the 12 senators were, happy with a lot of the elements of the plan. listen to what senator from nevada said about it. >> it was a thoughtful conversation. this should be a unifying issue. border security used to be unifying and i think there is a lot of pressure on the democrats that they need to stop obstructing. this isn't a game in arizona. it's public safety issue, a

national security issue. and everybody knows when i'm out and about in my state we got to secure the border and fix our immigration system. let's come to the table eanl work on this together to solve it for the american people. >> did i say nevada? i meant arizona. there seemed to be general agreement in the room to support the president's request for $4.5 billion in emergency funds to deal with the current crisis on the border. goes well beyond that to address the future of immigration. the real question is whether or not they can get democratic support for these proposal. >> john, we fresh yai appreciatu coming on the show. the six thing you have listed don't appear to deal with the biggest problems. 860 asylum cases pending right you. a two-year backlog. you're going to have more asylum cases coming forward with the secure border. what is the administration's answer for this part of the

problem that we have? >> that would be addressed in the border security proposal in terms of revamping immigration. they say that the asylum process is an important part of the united states' immigration view. but that they want to make sure that it's people who have legitimate asylum claims who are able to stay in this country and those with fraudulent asylum claims are removed from the clown trias quickly as possible. that's why the president was proposing what he proposed a little more than a week ago, revamping the asylum claims, making sure that the process ajudadjudicated more quickly. the president wants to get it done within 180 days. right now it takes three to four years to decide the cases. that would be part of the border security bill. >> it's great news that we're hearing about the merit based system, it's based on education system, wealth, country fluency and the language. you mentioned the $4.5 billion that they're talking about for

the emergency. isn't that a band aid solution and pretty much a follow-up to john's question that that is just going to deal with the border right now, not necessarily the wall. can you correct me on that? >> you're absolutely right. that has nothing to do with border security, wall construction or anything. this is $4.5 billion to deal with the influx of migrants that has been increasing substantially in fiscal year 2019 over previous years. i mean we're on track, according to customs and border protection projections to have a million people cross the border illegally. that requires an awful lot of manpower and then money in terms of housing these people, dealing with these people, having to hire judges to ajud adjudicate e cases that's only to deal with the current crisis at the border. this whole issue of building a wall that's an appropriation that's being dealt with on an emergency level, reallocated money from the department of

defense. the $4.5 billion does not involve building a wall. at least as far as what the white house has told us so far. >> one thing i didn't hear was anything about daca. that was on fire a year ago. now nobody is talking about it. the democrats made it seem as if it was the single most important thing now nobody is talking about it. why not. >> the senior administration, governor, didn't want to talk about that. today's meeting dealt with the core principles and what they want do in regards to the future revision nation of the immigration system. the president has proposed a path to citizenship for daca recipients and that could be held out there as a sweetener for dps. yodemocrats.the president wouldu don't want to get rid of the visa lottery, you don't want to get rid of chain migration, how about we include and provide status for daca recipients.

it may be a negotiating point. i don't know. but the briefing we got today they didn't want to talk about what happened to daca. david: i hear the scottish high lands behind you. i don't know whether you're in windsor castle or the white house. >> this is a guy that's been here for two weeks, stands out on pennsylvania avenue in front of the white house. he's got a lot of tunes so it's kind of nice. me being of scottish heritage. i like to hear it. apparently he's better than the trupter who hangs out at dupont circle late at night who only knows three tunes on high rotation. david: president trump's tax cuts under fire with one 2020 candidate calling for a total repeal and replacement with a new tax credit. but does it make any sense. details coming next.

. i am proposing that we change the tax code as follows. for families that make less than 100,000 dollars a year, i will implement a plan of allowing them to have a tax credit of up to 6,000 dollars a year. >> that's very interesting because then people will come up and say how are you going to pay for it. well, i'll tell you how we're going to pay for it. on day one we're going to repeal that tax bill that benefited the top. david: 2020 democrat kamala harris calling for quote a refundable tax credit. she says this is going to be paid for by repealing the trump tax cuts. harris saying that the u.s. should quote get rid of the whole thing, making her one of the few candidates to propose

scrapping the entire 2017 law. is a refundable tax credit mumbo jumbo? >> i think the technical term is economic idiocy. unemployment is down. across the board wages are up. this has worked and we've proven it. i vote for more tax cuts. if you want to continue to cut taxes if are the middle class were small business, go show that property taxes are unconstitutional. but you cannot undo the good that thaz been done by trying to reverse tax cuts that were already made. that is just peak stupid. >> carol, i second the motion you just made. it's like kamala harris is making this up as he goes and i would love to ask her, what would you like for us to g get rid of from the effect os tf trump tax cuts. you want to go back and put more women unemployed, more

african-americans unemployed, more hispanics unemployed. which group do you want to punish the most by going after the tax cuts which have been prfn tproven to result in bettee increases for the bottom 25% of the economy even in more so than the top of the economy. >> a lot of people have complained you have major corporations like netflix, amazon that didn't pay. they got enough rebates that it could have been $16 billion worth of ref knew righ revenue . americans across the board benefited fine. but did we need to drop 21%? the argument to the people she's speaking to is that the tax cuts did focus more on the wealthy because there are more caveats to get out of the estate tax, the pass through rate -- not pass through rate. misspoke. david: i don't think think we cut the corporate tax rate

enough but gang, go ahead. >> the problem with the loopholes in the tax code, it's about 77,000 pages right now because politicians for decades have been giving favors to corporations and that's why these corporations are not paying any taxes. that's why they don't want to go to steve forbes flat tax because they don't have the ability to buy off congress and biases and get reelect. the democrats are in a real band here because presidents that have a good economy tend to get reelected. any politician does. they're going to have to come up with something. wealth and equality. coming up with benefiting the 1% that they can't fight on the economy right now. david: to kamala's point, if she's going to get rid of the tax cuts that we had, that means there's going to be a huge tax increase. and when you have a tax increase, it has effects. i mean you tax something more and you get less of it. we get less jobs, less of an increase. >> is it increase or going to the status quo.

david: that's what's causing companies to move to ireland. >> here's the issue that i have with christina and jonathan. i don't understand what part of the corporate tax code you would like to get rid of. if you've made a loss in the past do you not think you should carry it forward. if somebody makes an investment instead of having it depreciated, why can't you expense it. i don't understand what part of the corporate tax code everybody has a problem with these r. these are common sense investments which is why these tax cuts have worked and why we have competitive -- a competitive corporate tax rate now. >> you know, carol, i think the best tax rate for kormingses is zercorporationsis zero. let me explain why. the corporate tax is ultimately paid for by the consumer. corporations don't pay tax. they collect it for the government and pass the cost on to the consumers. it's an invisible tax that the

consumer doesn't know he's paying and the best way to do it is to get rid of it completely. don't pay tax on corporate profits because the truth is it's just a big lead anvil. david: imagine how many companies would come to the u.s. if we had zero tax rate. everyone wants to know how we're going to pay for president trump's $2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan. one key republican has an idea. you may not like it but this is the idea. double the federal gas tax and boost airline fees. congressman chris collins on why he believes his idea is the right solution. that's next. ♪

david: president trump looking to move ahead with his 2 trillion-dollar infrastructure deal with democrats but question how the massive plan is going to be funded continue to pour in. chris collins is urging congress

to double the more than 18-cents per gallon national gasoline tax. now he also wants to double the existing fee that airline passengers pay per flight in order to pi pay for the package. congressman collins joins us. some saying raising the gas tax before an election is political suicide. why do you think it's the best way to pay for infrastructure? >> well one thing we agree on, democrats and republicans, is infrastructure needs abound in america. and what we're talking about is $80 billion a year over 25 years that's the $2 trillion. how do we get $80 billion. well currently the fuel tax raises a little over 36 billion and the passenger facility charge that's $4.50 ticket charge raises another 3.5 to 4 billion. we're raising 40 billion a year those two. the gasoline tax hasn't been touched in years.

if we double them we're raising an additional 40 billion on top of the 40 billion that we have. and all of the sudden real money, not monopoly money, is paying cash, we're not burdening our children and grandchildren with additional debt. we've already got $21 trillion. so the numbers work. and when you look at it, back in 1993 when gas was 1.1. on that math you could be at 45-cents. let's take tight 37-cents in the case of the passenger facility charge it was 4.50 twenty years ago. we're solving our problem with real money and the impact on drivers or airline passengers is almost negligible. let's face it, we're getting 15 miles to the gallon in '93, 30 miles to the gallon now. my numbers work. we got to have a way to pay for it and we're not going to pass

it on to our children and grandchildren with additional national debt. >> congressman, you know, everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. and as a governor who passed increase in fuel tax to build a road, i can tell you that people are willing to pay if you explain it to them and if they know what the benefits are going to be. and if they have a chance to voice themselves. we had an 81% positive vote on the gas tax. people said that would never happen. but people knew they needed better roads. nobody loves to pay more taxes but i think you're on to something. it's going to require an incredible sales job and an explanation of how the money is going to be spent so it's not going down the rabbit hole. >> we have to dedicate the money. the trucking industry wants to double the diesel tax as well because they want better roads, they want better bridges. and as long as america knows

where it's going, in the case of the airline facility charge, if it's adding new baggage claim areas and making things for efficient at our airports, no one is complaining about it. but we have to make sure that no one is going to reach in and grab the money for anything but infrastructure. >> how are you going to do that? most states aren't like governor huckabees. most states, up to 40% of the gas tax is put in the general fund and used for things other than roads and bridges. they rated it in 93 and in 81. in the 1960s they raided the social security fund. that's why it's insolvent now. why in the world should we trust you guys with more money? >> that's going to be part of the deal. if you want to call it the deal. and we wan have to mike sure ths laid out that these monies go into the highway trust fund, the airports. no raiding of them.

no reason we couldn't do it that way. and also why this is 100% paidz for, don't forget we could do public/private memberships, p3s. there's other monies that could be raised. but you're exactly right, congress and others want to dip in the funds. we can't let it happen. but this is a legitimate paid for and if the public knows where it's going, roads, bridges, no more potholes, they'll support it. i believe they will. >> congressman, in terms of the $2 trillion over 25 years, how much of that is interstate versus intrastate and do we really need the federal government in the middle of this being the one dolling out the grant money or can the states take care of this on their own? >> typically it's an 80/20 shift. i was the county executive in the buffalo area for four years and we always liked our federal projects and we never minded putting our 20% in. the share is 80/20.

sometimes the states prop up what the localities do. and again, the numbers that i have work even without that county share or the state share. so that just makes it better. we can do better than the 80 billion on that basis. it's not like everything is in perfect shape right now. we know that for sure. >> congressman, your numbers, 37-cents. the president said last year he would be willing to go up to 25-cents. it could be a hard sale sell. so how do you think that you can overcome that one. maybe people take to the streets to protest because they can't afford to drive into the city. >> the numbers do work. i'm a numbers guy. and when you lookedded a the 18.4 centss when gas was $1.11, that's 16.4%. 16.4% of $2.64 gas is 45.

you've got criticism and you've got to sell it. don't stop at 25%, do a reasonable thing, just shy of 37-cents. if you can't sell 25 or 37, you're not going to be at 25. let's not stop short and let's also index it to inflation so we're not having the debate every year or every ten years. david: we got to leave it at that. i got to tell you, ain't going to happen before an election. my thought, my opinion. but thank you for coming on. google launching new tools they say will protect your privacy online. what do you think? a live report from the company's biggest conference of the year coming right up. ♪

at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

conference of the year is currently under way along with new products. the spotlight is on privacy, your privacy and google's ability to track progress on online. robert what is new? >> privacy was the theme throughout the day, a two-how long long plus keynote going through a bunch of new products

and new services. but definitely talking privacy. the ceo saying near the top of the keynote the company aiming to create products based on a foundation of privacy. >> data helps makes search work better for you. and with auto delete you can choose how long you want it to be saved. for example, three or 18 months. after which any old data will be automatically and continue usually deleted from your account. this is launching today. >> now what was left unsaid is whether google would also delete your information. now it could give google an advantage over digital ad rivals in selling advertising against your likes because your search history would no longer be around for people to see what you were searching for two weeks ago. also introducing incognito mop e

saying it's coming to maps. also introducing a new android q operating system for mobile phones. the central focus is again security and privacy. it will take time to see whether or not it is more secure and private. on the hardware side, david, looking at things that could possibly boost revenue in terms of lower priced mobile phones within an xl version going for half of the pries of the pixel 3 brand. and the nest hub max, a large screen speaker that's aiming to be the hub, the one device to rule them all in your home. and we'll see if that will boost sales in the area. a lot of people are curious but we haven't seen the sales taking off just yet. david: don't have a dumb home but i don't have one in which every device that i have is listening to my private conversations. thank you very much. so do we believe that google has found a way to keep our searches private as we roam the internet?

>> yeah, right. what google is doing is being hypocritical saying we're not going to give it to third parties but we're going to keep all of the information to ourselves. so these cookies that are like cookie trails, they follow you from site to site to site. i think the only way to bypass it is to start using apps opposed to the various websites. onbelieve it at all. this is big brother. instead of a bunch of guys having your information, one guy has it, name is google or alphabet. >> the good news is that the robots will kill us before climate change. and as a shareholder i love what i'm hearing, love what i heard today on their ai, their google assist of all of these things that connect you. as an individual it scares the heck out of me. at the end of the day if you're connected to the internet, any technology that's responsive, that information is not secure and it's not private. the luxury of the future will be privacy and you're not going to get it this time around from

google, unfortunately. >> you know, carol, i'm not as worried about the privacy as i am the fact that they are engaging in censorship of materials that they don't like. and that is a very dangerous thing. because so many people get their news from the interweb, as we love to say. and as a result of that, when a google search sends you to the favorite information of the left, it is not a true forum. i think something is going to happen in the way of an antitrust suit, a lawsuit on the part of consumers. and the way they get out of it is to declare themselves a common carrier and no longer dictate content, simply be like a phone company, you buy the line, talk on it but the phone company doesn't get to say i don't like what you're saying i'm going to cut you off. >> there's got to be personal responsibility. if you're getting your news from facebook, the largest repository of cat videos in the world right now, there's something wrong

with you. this is the new red meat for the democrats running for election. they need somebody to go after. they're going after the tech david: a new wonder drug for infants suffering from a rare genetic disease could soon be hitting the market. that's good news. bad news, you're going to have the shell out $2 million to get it. is it worth the price? ♪ cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios 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.

my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck,

or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity. 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. ♪ they feel like they have to drink a lot of water. patients that i see that complain about dry mouth, medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth.

dry mouth can cause increased cavities, bad breath, oral irritation. i like to recommend biotene. biotene has a full array of products that replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works. it makes patients so much happier. david: a new live saving for

infants is about to hit the market and it could cost $2 million. the drug maker hasn't officially set the price but they say it has the potential to cure a genetic disease that typically kills infants before they turn 2, in just one doze. and that's why the company says the $2 million price tag is justified. is it? >> if it's my grandchild, you bet it is. one of the things that we have to begin to see is if there's some drug that transforms the lives of children, then maybe it's time for the federal government to say we'll buy the drug in navarre dis, pay $50 million for it and you're resolved from any liability. >> what makes this drug special is it and an intravenous injection. it's a one-time deal. an unfront cost, between 1.5 to $5 million. they're expecting fda approval by the end of the month.

it could go on the market. the trial that they had was about five years ago. we don't know the lasting effect. and then will public and private want to pay into such a high up front fee? >> good question. >> i agree with the governor what he said about the particular drug. but as far as health care in general, we have no transparency. the pharmaceutical industry has bought and paid for our congress. until we get that taken care of we're going to have a problem with our health care system. >> good point. >> this is an ongoing battle in terms of creating the incentives to be able to come up with life-save i guess druglife-savia small number of patients and have it worthwhile and not be cruel. there's got to be a way for them to ametorize it or bundle it to defray the costs. we want to incentives to be there but if nobody is access it, it's a worthless endeavor. >> but it's opening a whole new

branch of med sign, this gene therapy is extraordinary. and 12 of the 12 babies who have been treated, 100% have just passed their second birthday. god bless them for that. that dues i does for "bulls & b" liz: we've got every angle kord for you tonight from the market to the white house. and one of the world's experts on china. he'll going us to tell us why president trump is playing hardball now will save america later. and the president trying to hammer out a border fix with republican senators today as new details emerge on a new appalling tactic involving fraud that illegals are using to cross the boarder. the 2020 democrats talking down the economy, saying let's get rid of the tax cuts as we've got for you the canary and the coal mine w