want a redo especially they don't have their fan favorite winning. ashley: that's true. hbo is not going to do it folks. sorry to disappoint you. that does it for us. thanks for joining us. bulls & bears starts now. >> as our economy booms like never before, we're lifting millions of our citizens from welfare to work, dependents to independents, and poverty to prosperity. >> president trump touting the booming economy to the national association of realtors as new data shows our economic expansion could become the longest ever in u.s. history. the latest fox news poll showing 44% believe it's president trump and the republican who deserve the credit for this robust economy. ladies and gentlemen, this is bulls & bears. i'm in for david asman. joining me on the panel today.

not everyone giving the president props. in a "wall street journal" op-ed today, former vice chairman of the federal reserve and princeton economic professor alan blinder warns against giving the president too much credit for the strong economy, writing tax cuts and deregulation are juicing gdp but will pay the price for his presidency in other ways. what do you think of that? >> great to see you, gary. i would say, you know, alan blinder definitely has great credentials, but at the same time, you could say, you know, he's writing in that piece in the "wall street journal" that this is a little bit of luck, and it's a little bit of circumstances all coming together. and i would say, you know, the same thing happened to bill clinton then. i think the clinton camp would argue with economic expansion we saw at that time. so 44% of the people say they actually think this is about president trump and the policies that have been put in place. you look at the gdp in the first quarter. more than 3%. you look at unemployment, the lowest since 1969. the corporate tax cuts have been

stimulative. the deregulation, it's working. they just don't want to give him credit for it. >> well, and gary, good to see you in this chair. congratulations on that. i think that first of all, the interesting parts about the op-ed are what the ramifications could be down the road. i think that's sort of more germane and more important and what we should probably be fo s focusing on. as far as looking backwards, i will do simple arithmetic. i think we're in the ninth year of economic expansion and president trump has been president for two of those years. we all know this conversation is kind of silly to begin with, what credit presidents have for the overall economy, yeah, a little bit, but yeah, not really. seven years of this was president obama. >> i would argue with that. [laughter] >> i love you, adam, but here's what i would say to that, we had a financial crisis. the market had nowhere to go but up. so actually president trump came in at a time where he inherited

a market that was ready according to a lot of analysts for another recession, and in fact he's kept that going. we may see this bull market expand, you know, from seven to ten years into the next few years, maybe 20 years. >> from your mouth -- >> we really have a situation where he came in and said i'm not letting this turn the other way. we are moving forward >> i echo adam's thoughts, gary. you do great in the captain chair. i also echo adam's thoughts about president trump. look, we already had a bull market. we already had a decent economy, and president trump greatly extended that, and he does deserve a lot of the credit for that extension. right now, though, to me, adam, it is more about politics and it is about getting re-elected. presidents get reelected when economies are good. the president in my opinion wants to hang his hat on this economy. he already has. he's already married to it. if the economy stays strong, he get re-elected. i think that's all he's worried about in washington, d.c. right now. >> what matters to people is when they go to the polls in

2020 is am i better off today than i was four years ago? adam, even if you want to credit president obama for parts of the economic expansion and strength that we're having right now, why not go all the way back to george washington then? i mean, where does it end and where does it begin? >> i'm going to strike a happy note here. i won't quibble with you three. that 44% figure, that's also a fact. i mean, assuming the poll's a good one, that's no hooey that 44% of the people believe this, and so yes, absolutely, if the topic is politics versus the economy, then yes, that's a very powerful figure, and trump obviously will run on it. and it will be a powerful argument. >> all i know is every business i speak to talk about the regulations, about how they have dropped like a rock after accelerating to the upside under obama and how just the demeanor of business and how businesses think about the economy in washington has changed.

your thoughts? >> they have unleashed a lot of red tape that was very burdensome for small business even, i would say, not just big corporations and rolling back some of the corporate tax cuts. i think that was very important that the administration did to make us more competitive on a global scale. but this is the longest expansion in u.s. history. 170 million people in the country are working right now. i think that's the most ever. so that is a stunning figure, and unemployment near record lows, demographics across the board within that unemployment being african-americans, as well as women, female employment, it's doing very well, so it's hard to argue with those numbers. >> if we want to look at -- >> gary, though, just quickly, you know, this segment isn't about the trade spat with china. if we have a full on trade war, we'll see what the next 12 months holds for the economy, and that will be very interesting, including politically. >> john? >> adam, i think you are spot on right there. this has been the biggest

regulation cut since 1996 with the small business fairness act that came about because of president clinton which gave us the huge rise probably more than just the internet rising in the late 90s, but right now, you are right, it is all about the trade spat. this is self-sabotage. we have a tremendous economy. it is slowing, but it's not falling off a cliff. the one problem that we have, the one black cloud out there is that this trade war ramps up, and that could derail all of the good that's been done by the first part of the tax cut and regulations. >> but don't you think, john, that president trump had to push back because of china's unfair trading practices that have gone on for decades, stealing our intellectual property and currency manipulation. >> the question is how? >> the question of how but they are responding to tariffs. >> well, we will see if he does a good job of it. so far the jury is completely out on whether or not the response was a good one. that was tough one, and a lot of people liked that, but if it backfires and it hurts the economy, that won't help. >> what i just love watching -- go ahead, john. >> i will give you my opinion.

think it is a terrible job. i think he's doing a terrible job with the tariffs and trade war. we're losing contracts to brazil for our farmers forever. our farmers want to farm. they don't want bailouts. what we're doing the our country potentially long-term is structural damage to our country. there are other ways to deal with this. i can go through a litany of them by staying in the tpp, by reforming the world trade organization. there was ways to do this without starting a trade war with basically the world. >> i'm going to jump in here and say there's always two ways. there are other ways to do it. i think what the president is focusing on is the long-term game here, and that's the strategy. short-term he realizes there may be a little bit for americans as we go through, but if he doesn't take a hard-line with these countries, they are going to continue to walk on the united states. i think he's on to something that's bigger here. i used to cover energy, specifically, a lot of the deregulation has helped with that industry in this country. we are a country now that is

producing more oil than saudi arabia and russia. that is not just an economic factor. it is also a national security factor. all of these policies, they are almost 360. they focus on the economy but a lot of other issues involved. >> why does the left hate tax cuts? alan blinder is from the left. whether there's tax cuts, whether it's krugman or alan blinder, tax cuts are always bad. the fact of the matter is keeping more money in the economy is always a good thing instead of sending it to d.c. >> i will represent the left for the purposes of this segment and for your question, gary, i mean, i don't know if the left hates tax cuts. the conservative element of the united states hates budget deficits, so paul ryan was the leading spokesman in the united states for why we have to get the budget of the united states under control, and he just abandoned his principles as speaker. that would be one way of looking at it.

>> adam, we will be here for three weeks if we start talking about government spending when the republicans did with the budget in the last -- >> maybe. maybe we could do it quickly. [laughter] >> we got to wrap that up today. president trump says he still wants to work with democrats on infrastructure, but he says he may be getting played. what he's telling fox news about the 2 trillion dollars deal to fix our roads and bridges. that's up next on bulls & bears. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely.

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?

>> nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, we're going to get together and do a big infrastructure plan, but very soon after that you had mulvaney your chief of staff saying it is not going to happen. do you still want that big -- >> yeah, if mulvaney said that, then he has no right to say that. he tells me he didn't say that and he didn't mean it. he said it is going to be hard to finance. we put 7 trillion dollars into -- >> you still want that big infrastructure? >> i do. i also think we're being played by the democrats a little bit. i think what they want me to do is say we'll raise taxes or we'll do this or this and then they will have a news conference see trump wants to raise taxes. it is a little bit of a game. gary: that was president trump telling fox news's steve hilton that he is ready to get an infrastructure deal done. he is set to meet with pelosi and schumer next week for the second time.

they previously agreed on a 2 trillion dollars plan just not how they will pay for it. guys, do you think this has any hope of passing congress? >> well, unfortunately, as it stands right now, probably not, especially if lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are pushing back. senator mcconnell saying that he does not want to pass a 2 trillion dollars deal because of the hefty price tag that it carries, and regardless of whether or not mick mulvaney said that he is in favor of the infrastructure plan or not, i think president trump would -- i think more republican support if they can work in a 1 trillion dollars price tag instead of a 2 trillion dollars price tag because at the end of the day, the question is, how do you pay for it? >> what's a trillion bucks, right? >> among friends. >> exactly. what is a trillion bucks? we can't afford. that we're borrowing that from china anyway. we might as well borrow 2 trillion dollars. i don't think this has a chance

of passing. leading up to an election, if you have a huge infrastructure bill, whoever is out there that is not employed right now in america is going to be employed in construction. you have almost zero chance at that point of us slipping into a recession before the presidential election. that sounds a little conspiracy theory. look at what we have in washington, d.c. it makes perfect sense. the dems aren't going to pass this. i think they will probably do it after the election. the problem you have is why don't you identify the projects first instead of a number that looks good on a bumper sticker that says we're going to put 1 trillion, 2 trillion, identify the projects first, that way you know where the money is going to and then put a price tag on it. >> i will agree with you on that. the president promised an infrastructure plan. this almost becomes the battle with the border wall, he has to go to his constituents and says here's the things i have delivered for you in order to get re-elected. he is going to push really hard for this. you have schumer and pelosi equally -- they are going to dig their heels in because they're losing their battles on so many

different fronts as well that they they are going to pick this one and pick it apart and as heather said, you have both sides now not loving this deal. so unless you find the perfect sweet spot compromise, this is going to be tough. he is going to continue to push. >> i'm going to go ahead and play the complete contrarian with all of you. gary: no. >> really? [laughter] >> i mean this is a topic where the president for one and nancy pelosi for another happen to be in agreement. by the way, most reasonable americans would agree that we have a ton of infrastructure problems in this country. so i think by the way the president compared to some of the other issues he's been so passionate about, has demonstrated really poor leadership on this one. this was something he campaigned on. he let it go for the first year completely. and then he had this vague plan, well, we will pay for some, but the public will pay for more. no, i think if he comes to the democrats with a solid plan, they will want a win going into 2020 as well. it is good for the country. gary: to john's point, who do we

trust? i still remember obama's 800 billion dollars stimulus that was supposed to go to shovel-ready infrastructure, and we know what ended up getting shovelled there. if we start sending them money, all kinds of trillions, without anything specific, you know where the money is going -- >> gary, who is them you are referring to? gary: all of them. >> i don't know who you mean. that's my point. gary: politicians. >> okay, right, the government. we the people. gary: i wish. >> i think there will be momentum on both sides of the aisle to spend some money on this. will some of it get wasted? yes. but we need to build up our infrastructure. gary: you know, adam, you say some of it will get wasted, yes, like matter of factually. >> that's right. gary: we work our tails off to earn this money and pay them the tax. there should not be one dollar of waste in washington, d.c. >> of course there shouldn't. i mean all sorts of things shouldn't. we should have a president who doesn't call someone like john mccain a coward. i mean, there's all sorts of

problems. >> all right -- gary: back on subject. >> let's assume it won't be perfect and let's do it >> there's another problem with this and the reason the democrats will have a hard time passing any kind of deal, if an infrastructure plan does go into place, as you guys say, some of it maybe gets wasted, what if it doesn't? what if it actually creates jobs and helps the economic expansion continue and contributes to gdp? that's going to make president trump look better. nobody wants that. >> the democrats can share credit. >> and both sides of the aisle have proposed public private partnerships to step in and foot some of the bill here where the fiscal responsibility would be beared by the local private companies, but the ultimate responsibility or authority over these projects would still rest in the government's hands. they would still keep full control of the project, but have private partner -- private public partnerships as one way to fund it without increasing the gas tax. senator rand paul actually proposing that we spend 50 billion in afghanistan and so

why don't we -- is there some budget room or wiggle room there on some of our withdrawing some of our troops from some of the combat zones, and i think president trump has echoed some of that as an idea on how to pay for it well. gary: real quick, john, go ahead. >> in the sandy hook relief bill, there was a couple hundred million dollars they tried to put in for alaskan fish hatcheries. are you serious that congress is not going to steal this money? the reason the gas tax is insolvent was in 91, 93, congress raided the gas tax and put it in the general fund. they've done the same thing on the local state level. the reason the gas tax is not working, up to 40% of state's gas tax is going into the general fund to go to things that aren't infrastructure projects. there's actually money out there. not enough to cover it. but there's money out there to spend on our roads and bridges but our politicians are so corrupt and we say which ones? adam, all of them, all of them are corrupt. it's the only thing bipartisan in d.c.

gary: we got to wrap. my good friend, you made the good point there. don't miss steve hilton's full interview with president trump sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on the fox news channel. meanwhile, could rising tensions with iran be the result of a miscommunication? the latest details in a live report from the pentagon up next on bulls & bears. all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients 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.

the doctor's office might mejust for a shot.o but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta® onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta® reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1% a 94% decrease. neulasta® onpro is designed to deliver neulasta® the day after chemo

and is used by most patients today. neulasta® is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta® if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta® onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

gary: new threats out of iran as details are coming to light as this latest conflict unfolded leading the u.s. to send our military to the gulf. jennifer griffin is joining us live from the pentagon. what can you tell us now? >> gary, the tension began building after the u.s. put iran's islamic revolutionary guard core on the u.s. terror list last month. now a top iranian commander issued this threat to the u.s. military today, quote, even our short range missiles can easily reach warships in the persian gulf. america cannot afford the cost

of a new war and the country is in a bad situation in terms of manpower and social conditions. a democrat from new jersey congresswoman is a former navy helicopter pilot. >> my concerns are that we don't have the level of communication we need to ensure that unintended conflicts don't escalate into something more. i don't think that we have the communication with the iranian government that we need to deescalate this situation. >> the head of iran's national security committee and parliament called today for the u.s. and iran to hold direct negotiations in either iraq or qatar, amidst rising tensions, blaming an unnamed third party that he says is trying to stoke a war between the u.s. and iran, a veiled reference to saudi arabia whose leaders blame tehran's proxy militias for a drone attack that knocked out a key oil pipeline. a saudi newspaper close to palace called for the u.s. to

carry out surgical strikes on iran, adding tension to the stand-off. the u.s. abraham lincoln strike group is now in the arabian sea, carrying a large number of tomahawk missiles. iran's foreign minister spoke on route to china to discuss the nuclear deal which the u.s. pulled out of a year ago and the current oil embargo with china and china has shown that it's willing to break that embargo. he ruled out direct talks with the u.s. gary? gary: thank you, jennifer. joining us now american islamic form for democracy president. where do things go from here? >> it is good to be with you. i think we have to be realistic in understanding what the situation is. iran threatened our troops. as a result, president trump who is not an appeasement president such as president obama was responded with force as in telling them that there is a military that would respond to any threat to our troops, and

this is showing that appeasement does not work. appeasement has never worked with any of the tyrants in the middle east, and they cannot threaten our troops. so now what they are doing is you have to remember iran domestically its economy is very weak. it has a revolution that's nascent and on the verge of significant growth and the sanctions are bringing forth a significant amount of pressure so they are very disorganized, chaotic. there is now intelligence we heard today that it is being proven that the irgc actually planted those under water bombs that may have affected those liners. so they are acting out. they do in yemen. they do in syria and all over the place. so containment is our strategy and president trump and national security advisor bolton and secretary pompeo i think are right in making sure that they know that there is no appeasement that they can look for. >> hi, this is adam with fortune in california. just so i'm clear, when you refer to president obama has having conducted appeasement, i

assume you're referring to the multilateral negotiation, the treaty that the united states, the european powers and iran signed; is that correct? >> adam, it is not only that. they took 12 of our troops on to a ship for 24 hours. we begged them to give them back. they've made a fool out of us in syria and yemen. the appeasement was a top significant problem. >> what do you make of what we saw last week? two things are happened recently. -- two things have happened recently. one the british commander says there's no problem here. if somebody else tells you otherwise they are misinformed. second the report that the president is actively trying to tone things down right now. >> well, i think this president clearly campaigned on the fact that the last thing any president would want especially president trump is war. so i think that the way you prevent war is as reagan said, you have peace through strength. that's what we're doing. this concept of warmongering is i think another attempt by the

left and others to say that we're always at fault and it's the same thing with maduro. >> i'm sorry to be a jerk. i asked you two questions. that wasn't either one of them. the comment by the british commander and the report that the president is trying to tone things down. your reaction to that? >> well, what's wrong with that? i think that's good. i think the president -- that's appropriate for him to tone things down. i'm missing what the puzzle is there. >> my question is the british commander said there is not a problem here right now with the iranians. they are not acting in an aggressive way. i'm just curious your reaction to then when the pentagon said oh no that's not right. how should we understand that confli conflict? >>i think the british also tried to say that the missiles that we saw that were in the region were somehow false intelligence and then they ran back with their tail between their legs saying that was real intelligence not false intelligence. then our own intelligence that said that they were threatening our own troops. i don't think anyone has proven that that's wrong. again, the brits need to i think

own up to the fact that we have real intelligence that we had to respond to. >> if i can jump in with a question, you know, the iranians during the end of the obama administration, they had quieted down somewhat. they were not drawing or poking at the united states, but they were quietly fighting proxy wars all over the middle east, controlling yemen, controlling syria, having these tentacles all over the place. now president trump comes in. he says that was a bad deal that president obama signed. i'm going to toss it out and get rid of it. i'm going to sanction you and hit you where it hurts when it comes to oil. the iranian economy is also in shambles. these sanctions are stifling them. they don't have the means to go to war either. to me it almost looks like it is a bluff on both sides. >> well, i don't think our president is bluffing. i think he has to respond to the reality. i think on their side that has been their technique, they assume through proxy wars they

can continue to wreak havoc and call america the great satan and israel the little satan and still get away with things. president trump called the irgc a terror organization which i think was a major step that significantly impacted them on top of the sanctions that were rekindled if you will and have significantly impacted their economy as you just said. i think at the end of the day, they are significantly more contained than they were a year ago, but certainly they are a threat to the region. gary: real quickly, what do we give iran right now as possible off ramp to, you know, lower the boiling point at this point in time? >> that's a great question. i think the off ramp would be president trump asks them to have a conversation. i think they begin to demonstrate that they are not going to threaten us with 60-day, you know, breakout times as they claim to have and actually begin to become honest

players, which they have haven't done any of which. i think a conversation with president trump as he called for was smart. maybe that would be place to start. >> thank you very much, appreciate your time. >> any time, thank you. gary: up next, the debate over ceo pay heating up at yesterday's fox business town hall. is top talent worth the price? or is it getting out of hand? we'll ask former wal-mart u.s. ceo up next on bulls & bears. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job

from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers,

a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. gary: how much is too much? the debate over ceo pay in america is heating up. lou dobbs sounding off at the fox business town hall. lou: ceo pay in this country is out of line. the worker, the employee is

watching management soar in compensation, while workers have just a disadvantage part in that ratio. it should be much much less than 500 to 1. historically the number is anywhere from 20 to 25 times as much. and that has to be addressed. it should be addressed by the stake holders, including the people who own the companies, that is, shareholders. gary: let's bring in former wal-mart u.s. ceo bill simon. bill, thanks for being with us. what is your response to what lou had to say? >> in a way he's right. i think it is market factors. those have been driving both executive pay and workforce pay. over the last several years, executive pay has increased and workforce pay has been lagging until really until the last two years, but now with full employment and wage increases, we're starting to see the

workers catch up some. >> hey, bill, great to have you on the show. this is nothing new as far as wealth inequality and ceo pay. a greek leader tried to fix this back in 300 b.c. it's been going on since the beginning of civilization. and it happens regularly throughout society. now we see bigger wealth inequality because we have a global marketplace. the one thing that has never fixed this has been government policy. so what is the answer to this, as far as ceo pay and the angst that is felt among the workers? >> well, i think, you know, you asked the same question about bryce harper, is he worth it? and the answer is he's worth it if somebody is willing to pay the amount of money that he's asking or that he can get. in ceo pay, particularly right now, you know, there's a lot of demand for capable and talented people, and boards have to be very very careful when they make their decisions, and they have to offer the right amount incentive to the right person. many many times that works out

and it's worth it and they pay somebody a lot of money and they deliver for the company. and other times, they don't, and maybe they end up talking to you in a chair like this. [laughter] >> bill, it's heather. i love wal-mart. i just think we're painting a negative picture across the board on this topic. for example, in 2018, half of compensation awarded to s&p 500 ceos consisted of restricted stocks including stock options, two thirds of ceo pay was actually equity, which is a good sign, i think when you're tying pay to performance. i don't think that's such a bad thing. i understand there were parts of the story where their stock was down and the ceo still had an increase in pay. but overall, across the board, i was taught in my mba class that you look out for shareholders and you tie your compensation to shareholders and your stake holders as well. isn't this a good sign? >> no, i think it is, and you're

right, if you really look at the pay, the reported pay, the pay that companies have to report for section 16 officers is the maximum amount they could make, if everything works well, and more than two thirds in many cases in the ceo's cases, it's as high as 90% sometimes of the pay is incentive based, either in equities or in bonus, and they are performance based plans. so you report what's made available to them. if they don't succeed, they don't get that. but very rarely do they come back and say oh, no, this ceo didn't get paid because they didn't perform. they only report what was offered out there. so i think the way it's going, you know, companies and boards particularly have to be very careful and closely scrutinize the ceo pay, but think that's happening. gary: i want to switch gears right now. wal-mart cfo says the company is monitoring the tariff situation with china, but warns that the higher tariffs are going to lead to higher prices for all of

wal-mart customers. so what happens in the boardroom in wal-mart right now in the planning room and how to navigate this? >> well, he's a great cfo and one of the best in the country, they know what they are doing. they will treat this commodity cost increase like they would a cost increase anywhere else in any other category. the first thing they will do is look to see if they can mitigate it. can they negotiate it? can they move it somewhere else and not incur the cost because wal-mart and most retailers, most companies will try to do that for their customers. that would be the first step. the second step will be what does the market look like? is there a way -- if i have to take these costs, is there a way i can pass them through? if there is, they will. if there isn't, they will absorb it. i would expect the tariff impact is would be dealt with in those three ways, a certain percentage i believe in the long run most of it will be mitigated, moved

or negotiated away. a portion of it will be absorbed by the company because either they can or have to and the rest will be passed through >> a number of estimates are floating out in the marketplace saying over the course of the year this will cost an american family of four a little bitless than $800. let's go with that number for now. i look at gas prices when they rise and impact the american consumer. consumers still get in their cars and still take vacations and still travel. even if wal-mart does have to pass that off to the consumer, there's a certain, you know, part of us that will deal with it and figure out a way. do you agree? >> i do. consumers are smart. they are very smart, especially when it comes to their money. they will find, you know, the lowest price and the best product they can for that price and make do. so, you know, the analysis you're quoting with $800 would be if they bought exactly the same thing at exactly the same place and didn't make any choices based on that, but if the price goes up 10%, they are

going to make a choice and buy something else or go somewhere else. that's what they do. that's what they do with gas. that's what they do with any commodity. retailers are smart enough to know that so they will adjust their product to determine how much the market can bear. >> this is adam with fortune magazine in san francisco. my instinct tells me you are sort of underplaying with the ramifications of price increases on consumers across the board could be from wal-mart. the question i want to ask you is are there strategic things that companies like wal-mart or really wal-mart can do such as looking for other places to source their products, other than china? do you think that's an active conversation and sort of play that out for us, if you would. >> oh shusure. that's what i meant by mitigating. the very first thing they will be doing is trying to find other places and other sources. they will take these costs that are presented to them in the form of a tariff and say well, if i buy it from china, that's going to be in there, but if i buy it from vietnam or if i can

make it in the u.s., i don't have to deal with it. that's the first step in this. in the long run, i think they will be able to find a way to offset all those costs, which is why china really needs this deal because the longer this goes, the less likely that american consumers and companies are going to keep paying the tariff. they are going to find a way, or a place that can manufacture the product without the tariff. and that's why i really still think a deal will get done. gary: bill, real quickly, i know wal-mart made some big news this week with its plan to expand one-day delivery. you think amazon may be shaking in their boots a little bit this week? >> i doubt it. i mean, amazon's a great company, and they're marching ahead with their own plan. wal-mart's approach is more this sort of convergence of physical and digital and the use of their stores to do -- order on-line and pick up in store and deliver the last mile. wal-mart is going in a little bit different direction than amazon is. either way, you know, for both

companies this is an expensive proposition, but it is what the consumer wants so they are headed in that direction. no, i don't think amazon is too worried about wal-mart. i know wal-mart is not too worried about amazon. they are both good companies, and they are competing well against each other. gary: i continue to call wal-mart the greatest job creating machine in history. thanks for being on with us today, bill >> happy to do it. gary: up next sky high drug prices, alexandria ocasio cortez slamming the ceo of a major drugmaker for one drug that costs more than a thousand dollars here in the u.s. and only 8, that's right $8 overseas. does she have a point? we will play the heated exchange up next. ♪

play it cool and escape heartburn fast with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. ♪ tum tum tum tums

with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. 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. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now

during our memorial day sale. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. only at a sleep number store. during the memorial day sale, save $1000 on the new queen sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. only for a limited time. sleep number. proven, quality sleep.

gary: the president and congresswoman alexandria ocasio cortez seem to be on the same side of at least one issue, sky high drug prices. ocasio cortez slamming the ceo of gilead for slapping a nearly $2,000 price tag on an hiv drug that cost just 8 bucks in australia. >> we the public, we the people developed this drug. we paid for this drug. we led and developed all of the grounding patents to create prep

and then that patent has been privatized despite the fact that the patent is owned by the public, refuse to enforce it, there's no reason this should be $2,000 a month. people are dying because of it. and there's no enforceable reason for it. gary: so gang, does she have a point? >> she does have a point. like anything ms. cortez says, the right tends to talk over that. she's correct in this. there's no transparency in our health system. there's no reason you can go to doctor and get a procedure for $5,000 and go the another doctor and have the procedure for $5,000. -- $50,000. the medical lobbyists have bought and paid for our congress. until that's taken care of, we will never have transparency in any of the healthcare business. >> obviously she has a point. gary to the point that you led in the segment with, i have been saying since the beginning of this congress, that there were three things that the president

and congress might agree on, infrastructure, regulating big tech, and drug prices, and i believe something could happen here, and we're seeing exactly why. >> i agree with adam. gary: fox news alert! [laughter] >> i partially agree with aoc but i can't give her full credit here. we are part of a capitalist system, but it is not okay to slap these prices on drugs. the president has said it is not okay either. this is a great example of the debate that we've been having all week on the socialism capitalism side, of a part of the system that can be tweaked or reformed. there are middlemen in the process. there are all things that go into the drug pricing scheme that make the prices so high in this country and certainly something can be done about that. you know, the point that she makes that is correct is that people are dying. if they need the drug, they should be sable to have access to it -- they should be able to have access to it and there has to be a little bit more of an equitable way. there's a great example of the tweaking of the system where a lot of people could benefit.

>> i think we all agree here, so it does have bipartisan support. perhaps the infrastructure plan can get bipartisan support eventually as well. [laughter] >> but look, if the administration have put forth the idea of publicizing drug prices and i think even hospital costs for certain procedures on television ads, and that would stimulate the debate even more. i think we're all agreeing you make the costs public, make them compete, and that's one way to get drug prices to come down. gary: why not a simple full and fair disclosure? is it that tough -- i know john alluded to it, about the lobbyists. why can't we just get a product and a price straight in our face so we can make a good decision, john? >> john's 100% right about that. their lobbyists are so good. gary, they are going to make that as complicated as possible for as long as they can because they're paid good money to do so. gary: kind of like the tax code. >> maybe -- yeah, right, the accountants don't want to

simplify it. gary: all i can tell you, i have a family that's had issues with medicine and health for a very long time, and it is about as convoluted and confusing as it possibly can be. hopefully they do something about it. up next, california considering new dramatic plan on how to cut back on carbon. wait till you hear this. >> 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. ♪ your control. like bedhead. hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky...

and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like. so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey! ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro. i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face.

most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card.

david: in an effort to reduce emissions and clien climate chae they're going to ban all powered vehicles. >> more likely that they will go before california does. but i don't live until the company where they love their cars. the traffic in san francisco has gotten so bad i drive a bicycle to work back and forth everything okay. i'm not real optimistic it will happen every time soon. >> that was my first question. do you ride a scooter to work? a bike works too. i can't call you hypocrite then. if you're riding a bicycle to work. i know that the price of gas in california is off the chart, that has something to do with

the tear. it's been the highest since 2014, and their hundred they nal averages 285 a gallon. i would ride my bike to work. >> we are so far behind the times, it is not time. it is going to be 100 years before we get this. i lived in antarctica about 12 years ago, the ozone layer has been completely replenished because the 70s and 80s. there are things that they can do as far as regulation. there are things government can do. i think it's too early to be in the gasoline car but i think the process a debate going forward

is a good one. >> i have to agree with john. climate change exist and we need to focus on it. you cannot ban cars. the reason that gas prices are higher because they want to refine fuel certain way. make sure summer is a winter plan, their texting as well. at the time, the united states is using so much, they will not get away with that. even though people would like to see electric powered vehicles, it's not real. >> is celtic agreed new deal, i would get rid of airplanes two. will solve climate change. >> in the long-term electric cars, i assume that's where they're going with the thought. >> a think it started with 20 billion and is now 7 billion, now it's been canceled. i don't know if the on the right

track. i must tell you, all this talk about moving, still apply and demand should matter. thank you so much for being with us. >> we are taking out the power out of washington, these bad people and returning it to the market people where it belongs. just think about comey and the gangs. [cheering] >> president trump going after the swamp with his angry house democrats. now desperately fear the public has lost interest in their probe emily. upset, the democrats are angry there will be no