you have arrived. sweet belt. e-reader for textbooks. gps. video camera for lectures. game pad. have you considered this ? it's got all that and more than 200,000 apps. technology to learn and play on-the-go. only at verizon. android powered. playstation certified. the xperia play by sony ericsson. only $99.99. [ applause ] >> bret: welcome back.

our next round is a lightning round quick before we get too foreign policy and national security. are we missing a candidate on the stage? we are. she will be right back. congresswoman bachmann. there she is. that's okay. there we go. texas governor rick perry, obviously is not here tonight. he's giving a speech on saturday in south carolina. we're told he's getting into this race. but he's not answering questions tonight. he's not taking part in the straw poll on saturday. is he out-smarting you? congressman paul? [ inaudible ] >> bret: are you worried about his strategy? >> no i'm pleased that he's

coming in. he represents the status quo i feel like i'm separated from the other candidates with my strong belief in liberty and limited government and different foreign policy. >> bret: mr. cain, what about texas governor perry? >> welcome to the contest. from my perspective, it doesn't bother us or my campaign. that's just one more politician and that makes this business problem solver stand out that much more. >> bret: governor huntsman, your thoughts? >> we all need prayers and i hope he offers a lot for everybody on this stage. aside from that we also feed jobs in this country i hope if he does get in this race he expands this dialogue about job creation. the people know that president obama has had 2 1/2 years to get it right on the most important issue we face, expanding the economy and creating jobs.

he's fundamentally failed us. anyone who is going to expand this group and brings a little savvy on the subject i think is a net plus. >> greta: scholz garten. >> is here in iowa not in the race yet. congresswoman bachmann is she stealing your thunder? >> i like sarah palin a lot. we are very good friends. i think there's room in the race for governor perry, sarah palin and bret you too. >> bret: speaker gingrich. >> mayor giuliani has every right to run. governor perry has a great record of job creation in texas. very formidable person. governor palin has a nationwide audience. it is a shock times to political folks the first delegates are chosen in january. people have lots of time to come and play. they are missing this great opportunity to be with you

guys and have all the fun we are having here tonight. i would like forward to anybody who wants to run, that's what america is about. >> bret: foreign policy and national security. governor pawlenty. another five u.s. soldiers were killed today in afghanistan after the single biggest loss that helicopter crash over the weekend, last weekend. almost 10 years after 9/11, after the killing of osama bin laden, casualties mounting there, costs adding up, many calling the government there corrupt. is it still worth it? >> first of all, let's stop and pause and reflect upon the loss of life the five brave members of the military that you mentioned, as well as the 30 lost about a week ago and all the others who have been lost or wounded in that conflict. we all not just our words of thanks and appreciation to their families our thoughts and prayers. we wouldn't have the country

we have without those brave men and women. we owe them with not just our words, but with our deeds. [ applause ] >> as for afghanistan we were justified in the invasion, it was 10 years ago. people killed americans we needed to go there, find them, bring them to justice or kill them. in terms of where we are now, 10 years removed i was there last summer with governor perry, met with general petraeus he thought would it take two years from last summer to have an hordely and successful wind down of -- to have an orderly and successful wind down. president obama has accelerated that faster than general mullen or petraeus recommended. i would have accepted their recommendations and drawn them down a little slower. >> so it is still worth it? >> it is. but we have to have a successful draw down not one ing to barack obama's campaign calendar. >> bret: governor romney in june 2009 you argued that

america's willing to fight wars of liberation nurture democracy and human rights all over the world. what made america the hope of ther. a full embrace of george w. bush's freedom agenda. last debate about afghanistan you said, we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try to fight a war of independent -- of independence for another station. those two statements are different. have your views changed? no. we have helped the people of afghanistan establish freedom from the taliban. now we are at a point where they have to earn and keep that freedom themselves. this is not something we are going to do forever. we've been there 10 years training the afghan troops. sometime within the next two years we are going to draw down or troops and reach a point where the afghan military is able to preserve the sovereignty of their own nation from the teary of the

taliban. that has to -- from the tyranny of the taliban. that has to happen. according to as i said in the last debate, according to the timetable established and communicated by the generals in the field. those generals recommended to president obama we should not start drawing our troops down until after the fighting season in 2012. he took a political decision to draw them down faster than that. that is wrong. we should follow the recommendation of the generals and look for the people of afghanistan to pick up that fight and preserve that liberty that has been so dearly won. >> as president obama was decidinging to do in libya, you were asked what you would do. you said exercise a no-fly zone this evening. after the president launched military action you said i would not have intervened. i think there were other ways to affect gadhafi. are you certain about the way forward in libya and where it

stands now? >> this is a good example of a gotcha question. >> bret: no, it is not. >> go back previous to greta van susteren two weeks earlier, when i said what we should do go in covertly use egyptian and other allies not use american forces. i said that thing specifically after the president that day announced gloriously to the world as president of the united states that gadhafi has to go. and i said if the president is as serious about gadhafi going, this is what we should do. the following interview came after the same president said, i didn't mean go meant go. i meant go maybe we should have humanitarian intervention. i was commenting on fox about a president who changes his opinion every other day. ought to be covered by a fox commentator using all the things i said, not hand picking the ones that fit your premise. >> bret: mr. speaker the question was are you now certain the way forward in

libya? >> i talked recently to the general who is probably the most knowledgeable senior general speaks fluent arabic. who said we have a bigger strategic deficit than our fiscal deficit. i think we need to rethink everything in the region. we need to rethink afghanistan, iraq and i think we need to recognize right now iran is on offense. our troops are in danger everywhere in that region. i think we need a very serious national debate about it. >> bret: governor huntsman you were former ambassador to china for the obama administration. last week new instances cyber espionage hacking into u.s. computers. experts say all signs point to china. would you as president consider cyber attacks acts of war? >> absolutely. this is the new war field, cyber intrusion is.

what we need is to use this issue as not only an economic development tool also a national security tool. we need early warning capabilities and safety guards and counter measures. not only have government institutions been hacked into. private individuals have been hacked. this is also part of a dialogue that has not taken place with the chinese. we need dialogue at the highest levels between the united states and china. that is not happening. this is a relationship the united states and china both on the world stage as far as you can see into the 21st century we have to deal with the chinese. we better get it right. i understand this relationship, i've been at it for 30 years. it would be great to have a president of the united states who knew something about china. >> chris: governor pawlenty, you say we have to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. you said syrian president assad must go. would you rely on the idea of

international sanctions that president obama has been using or would you be more forward leaning in point possibly using military action. >> we need to use an increasing number of tools and measures, as to iran. i believe we should undertake every plausible to deny their intentions and plans to get a nuclear weapon, including sanctions, some of the good work you saw with some of the scientists on their way to work in iran. some of the good work you saw with computer virus in the end, we should take every plausible step to deny that intention. as to syria, assad is phoug down and killing his people, up -- is mowing down and killing his people up to 2,000. palm beach. will not say he should go. -- he suggested he and hillary clinton suggested assad is a reformer. he's not a reformer he's a killer. he sticks his thumb in the eye

of our best friends in the world. israel, he repeatedly sticks his thumb in israel's eye we should stand shoulder to shoulder with israel. they are one of our best friends in the world. [ applause ] >> congressman paul, you say president obama is not too soft on iran. you say he's too tough on iran. sanctions are not diplomacy you say. they are a precursor to war and embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free frayed. >> chris: is that your policy towards iran. >> they have no evidence that they are working on a weapon. think of what we went through in the cold war when i was in the air force, after i was

drafted. through the 60s, we were standing up against the to have yes -- soviets. they had 30,000 jury missiles. think of the agitation and worrying of a country that might get a nuclear women some day. think how many nuclear exception surround iran, chinese, indians, pakistanis, israelis, united states, china has nuclear weapons. why wouldn't it be natural they might want a weapon internationally they would be given more respect. why should we write people off in the 50s we at least talked to them. at least our leaders and reagan talked to the soviets. what is so terribly bad about this. countries you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. i say a policy of peace is free trade stay out of their internal business. do get involved in these wars and bring our troops home.

[ applause ] >> chris: your policy towards iran is if they want to develop a nuclear weapon that's their right, no sanctions, no effort to stop them? >> i think that makes it worse. why would that be so strange if the soviets and chinese have nuclear weapons. we tolerated the soviets, we didn't attack them. they were the greatest danger to us in our history. you don't go to war against them. this idea of sanctions, all these free traders put on these trade sanctions this is why we still don't have trade relationships with cuba. it is about time we talk to cuba and stop fighting these wars that are 30, 40-years-old. [ applause ] >> chris: senator santorum -- >> as awe for of the iran --

as the author of the -- iran is not iceland, ron. iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. iran has killed more american men and women in uniform in iraq and afghanistan than the iraqis and afghans have. the iranians are the existential threat to the state of israel. ask the israelis what keeps them up at night? let me finish. >> no, no! . there are rules here. >> i know there are rules. and you have been giving these guys a lot of time so let me answer the question. >> the senator is wrong on his history. we've been at war in iran for a lot longer than '79.

we started it in 1953 when we sent in a crew, installed the shah and the blow-back came in 1979 because we don't mind our own business that's our problem! [ an us a ] -- [ applause ] >> chris: mr. cain, you told bill o'reilly in june, the way you stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon is for us to get serious about real energy independent strategy. do you think that more domestic oil production in this country is going to convince the mullahs in tehran not to pursue a nuclear weapon? >> i believe our energy strategy is directly related to national security as well as stopping iran in their efforts. the head of iran, ahmadinejad has said that he wants to wipe israel off the face of the

earth. i take that seriously. he has also said that he's not going to listen to the united states, britain or anybody else in their attempts to do what they want to do. that being said, there is more to foreign policy than bombs and bullets. theirs bombs, bullets and economics. if we go serious about maximize -- maximizing our energy resources we can become a player on the world market. as the price of oil goes down it put as economic squeeze on iran this is why i believe we should have a serious energy independent strategy in order to be able to be a player on the world market that's way by using our energy resources, not just oil, but all of our resources to become energy independent. [ applause ] >> chris: congresswoman bachmann, you say we don't win the war on terror by closing

guantanamo and reading miranda rights to terrorists. congressman paul says terrorism suspects have committed a crime and should be given due process in civilian courts. could you tell congressman paul why mice wrong? >> simply, terrorists who commit acts -- acts against u.s. citizens people from foreign countries who do that do not have any right under our constitution to miranda rights. we've seen that guantanamo bay has yielded significant information. we've learned that led to the capture and the killing of bin laden. this is a tool we need to prostitute the new type of war, new type of warfare -- to prosecute the new type of war, new type of warfare. iran is the central issue newt mideast. their capacity to being a nuclear power. they are one of the four state

sponsors of terror in the world. i sit on the house select committee on intelligence. i can't reveal classified information. as president of the united states i will do everything to make sure that iran does not income a nuclear power. >> chris: 30 seconds congressman paul. >> i think she turns our rule of law on is head. she said the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts. therefore, judgment has to be made. they are ruled a terrorist. who rules them a terrorist? i thought our court recognizes that you have to be tried. we've done this and brought individuals back from pakistan and other places. we've given them a trial in this country, over 300, at least near 3 , we tried and put them in brings -- 300, we tried and put them in prison. this idea we have to reject the rule of law. we are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish. this administration already

has accepted the principle when you assume somebody is a terrorist they can be targeted for assassination, even american citizens that affects all of us. you don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule. [ applause ] >> senator santorum, you say attorney general holder must be under the influence in fact you have suggested perhaps smoking mushrooms, to want to try terrorists in civilian court. are you suggesting that congressman paul is under the influence? >> anyone that suggests that iran is not a threat to this country not a threat to stability in the mideast obviously is not seeing the world clearly. that we have to go around and apologize for the fact that we have exerted our influence to create freedom around the world. i don't apologize for that. i don't apologize for the

iranian people being free for a long time. now they are under a law that tramples the rights of women, gays and people throughout their society. and it the greatest supporter of terrorism and setting up training camps in venezuela and other countries to threaten us. iran is a country that must be confronted. i was in front of this curve. i offered the iran freedom of support act in 2004 blocked by joe biden. we got it passed. if rick santorum and when rick santorum is president, iran will not get a nuclear weapon, because the world as we know it, will be no more. >> you've her the war propaganda that -- you've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lead us into the sixth war. iran is a threat because they

have some militant there is. but they are all around the world and they are not a lot different than others. iran does not have air force that can come here. they don't -- they can't even make enough gasoline for theps service. here we are building this case up, they are building up this case, just like we did in iraq. bill up the war propaganda. there was no al-qaeda in iraq. they had nuclear weapons and we had to go in. i'm sure you supported that war as well. it is time we quit this. it is trillions we are spending on these wars! [ applause ] >> when we come back, we'll try to get ahold of6j[1g thin/%÷ social issues that should be fun. and the most pressing issues right now, getting america back to work, after this break. [ male announcer imagine all of your missed opportunities

in one place. ♪ the front-row tickets you never bought. the lucrative investment you never made. the exotic vacation you never took. but there's one opportunity that's too good to miss. the lexus golden opportunity sales event, with exceptional values on the lexus rx. but only until september 6th. see your lexus dealer. is this the year you make a commute that's a little more worthwhile? then you belong at bass pro shops. this week at the fall hunting classic you can save up to $100 extra on a new scope when you trade in an old one.

[ applause ] >> bret: welcome back.

now to byron york from the washington examiner. >> we are going to talk about social issues. we start with speaker gingrich. you said you would impose a loyalty test for muslims to serve in your administration. you said, we did this in dealing with the nazis. and we did this in dealing with the communists. are you comparing american muslims to nazis and what specific loyalty test would you require them to take? >> actually, i didn't describe it as applied to muslims. i described it as applied to everybody. we had a cat -- catholic head ofs knowledge for the fbi turned out to be a soviet spy. cuban-american refugee turned out to be a spy for over 20 years. my point was, there is nothing illegitimate about seeking to make sure that the people are loyal to the united states if they work for the government.

i was responding to this insane moment where "the new york times" attempted bomber the guy who built the car bomb from pakistan was asked by the judge who said you swore an oath of loyalty to the united states. he said to the judge, i am your enemy, i lied. and the judge seemed mystified at the idea that somebody would have lied. my point is, we know for example from the verona papers and others there were communist spies. i would suggest we need security provisions to ensure those americans and in the american government are loyal to the united states. [ applause ] >> thank you. next mr. cain, you recently said this about governor romney's mormon faith: it doesn't bother me, but i do know it is an issue with a lot of southerners. could you tell us what it is about mormonism that southerners find

objectionable? >> i did make that statement. it does not bother me. but because i live in atlanta, georgia have been in my hometown for 10 years, i listen to what people say. what they say is that they are not real clear about how his mormon religion relates to the majority of the people's protestant, christian religion in the south that was the point i was trying to make. i was not an aspersion on his religion i was saying what others have told me about not being clear in understanding his religion. that's what it was. >> you have already apologized for remarks you made about islam. is your focus on other peoples' religions hurting your campaign? >> it is not. my focus is not on other people's religion. i believe in the first amendment to the constitution. i believe the government does not have a right time pose

religion on people. when you are talking about sensitive issues, i think we owe it to ourselves to make sure people are committed to the constitution of the united states of america first. [ applause ] >> next representative bachmann. in 2006 when you were running for congress you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. you said you hated the idea. then you explained, but the lord said be submissive. wives you are to be submissive to your husbands. as president, would you be submissive to your husband? [ booing ] >> thank you for that question byron. marcus and i will be married for 33 years this september 10th. i'm in love with him.

i'm so proud of him. what submission means to us, it means respect. i respect my husband. he's a wonderful godly man and great father. he respects me as his wife. that's how we operate our marriage. we respect each other, we love each other. i've been so grateful we've been able to build a home together. we have wonderful children and 20 foster children we've built a business and life together and i'm very proud of him. [ applause ] >> thank you representative. now a few questions about gay marriage starting with governor romney. when the massachusetts supreme court legalized gay marriage in 2003, you accused the justices of an up soing for themselves the powers that should belong to the state legislature. now the new york legislature has legalized gay marriage do

you believe state lawmakers have the right to make same-sex marriage legal in their states? >> i would rather have people make that decision than justices. i believe the issue of marriage should be decided at the federal level. you may wonder why? because people move from state to state in a society like ours they have children. if one state recognizes a marriage and the other does not, what kind of divorce proceeding potential would there be? marriage is a status not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state. a result our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country. i believe we should have a federal amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman. because i believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad. >> next governor huntsman. recently, a des moines

register poll found that 58% of likely caucusgoers, republican caucusgoers here in iowa consider support of civilian unions a deal kill . why are you right and most other candidates wrong? >> i'm running on my record. i'm proud to run on my record. some run from their record, i'm running on my record. i believe in traditional marriage first and foremost, i've been married 28 years, seven kids. i believe in civil unions. i think this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality. i believe this is something that ought to be discussed. i don't have any problem with states having this discussion. i support civil unions. [ applause ] >> the question was, why are they wrong? >> they are not wrong. all i'm saying is this ought

to be an issue that takes place at the local level of government. that's where these decisions ought to be made. as for those polled, everybody can come to this with their own point of view. i believe in traditional marriage. but i also believe we haven't done an adequate job when it comes to equality. that is my personal belief. everyone is entitled to their personal belief too. >> representative paul, you said you believe defining marriage is a job that should be left to the states. recently senator santorum asked if a state wanted to allow polygamy, would that be okay too? what is your answer to that? >> that is like asking if the states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that, so past reality that no state is going to do that. on the issue of marriage, i think marriage should be between a single man and a single woman. and the federal government shouldn't be involved. i want less government involvement. i don't want the federal

government having a marriage police. i want the states to deal with it if they need to. if you didn't need the states really, why do we have to have a license to get married? why don't we just go to the church? why can't we permit them to do whatever they call it that is their problem not mine. so nobody elses forces their definition of marriage on you. that is what we have to prevent. less government would be better if you have to have regulations let the state governments do it. [ applause ] >> senator santorum? >> sounds like representative paul would say poll muss marriage is okay. it is not beyond reality it is being litigated in our courts now which is how gay marriage came about as we see in iowa. seven justices forced gay marriages on the people of

iowa. i was the only one who came and made sure those three justices were7" defeated. because we can't have -- [ applause ] >> we can't have 50 marriage laws. this was the approach that the left took on abortion. which is to pick a few states, courts and go to the supreme court and say equal protection you can't have different state laws then you will have nine people at the supreme court decide wag marriage is in country. you have to fight in each state. i will come to the states and fight to make sure this strategy of picking off a state here and is not successful in transforming marriage. >> i support the federal marriage amendment because i believe we will see this issue at the supreme court some day. as president, i will not nominate activist judges who legislate from the bench. when i was in minnesota i was the chief author of the

constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man, one woman. i have an unblemished record when it comes to this issue. >> our next question, thank you representative bachmann. our next question is for senator santorum. in june you said, i believe any doctor who perform as abortion should be criminally charged for doing so many would you allow no exceptions for cases of rape on incest. polls have shown that large majorities of americans support some exceptions for abortion. are your views too much, even for many conservatives to support? >> the supreme court of the united states on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty. yet, the child conceived as a result of that, could be. that sounds like a country that doesn't have its morals correct. that child did nothing wrong. [ applause ]

>> that child is an innocent victim. to be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. it is an innocent human life. genetically human from the moment of contraception. we in america should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who have been traumatized already. to put them through another trauma of an abortion. i think is too much to ask. so i would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough. >> thank you senator. [ applause ] >> governor pawlenty, you often cite an article in national review saying you may be the strongest pro-life candidate in the race. what is your opinion on what senator santorum said and isn't he more pro-life than you are? >> national review is a respected publication from a conservative and republican perspective. they did an online article

that said based on results, not rhetoric, that i'm perhaps the most pro-life candidate in this race. the reasons are these: number one, when i was in minnesota as governor i proposed and signed into law the women's right to no bill. the positive alternatives to abortion bill. i proposed and signed into law the fetal pain bill and more. our abortion rate in minnesota has dropped dramatically. now at historic lows. in terms of my personal views the only exception i can justify is the life of the mother. i would sign that bill if it came in that form as president or governor. if another bill came with other except that substantially advanced the pro-life cause i would sign that bill too. i want to make progress to limit and ultimately end abortions in this country. i want to move the pro-life cause forward and i have. that's why that publication said that perhaps i'm the most pro-life person on this stage, based on results, not just

rhetoric. >> do you support criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions? >> there should be absolutely consequences for doctors who perform abortions if and when it is illegal. possibility of criminal sanctions or severe civil sanctions. i don't think the woman involved should be criminally sanctioned. >> bret: back now to the economy. susan? >> governor romney, you suggested replacing government jobless benefits with individual unemployment savings accounts. jobless benefits for millions are about to expire in a few months if you were president now, would you extend them? >> we got a lot of people out of work. we got a president that has an entirely failed economic policy. frankly, doesn't know what to do to get this economy going. surely we are going to help people who can find other ways to care for themselves. the most important thick we are talking about is making sure president obama is replaced by someone who knows

how to get this economy going again that's what this debate is about. that's what the american people want to understand. unemployment benefits, i think they've gone on a long time. we have to find ways to reduce our spending. anti-poverty programs and unemployment programs. i would far rather see reform of our unemployment system to allow people to have a personal account which they are able to draw from as opposed to endless unemployment benefits. let's reform the system. make it work better by giving peep responsibility for their on employment opportunities -- giving people responsibility for their own employment opportunities. >> would you sign a bill to extend unemployment insurance if you were president right now? >> i would go to congress with a new system for unemployability. which would have specific accounts from which people could withdraw their own financeds and not put in place a continuation of the current plan. >> thank you. governor huntsman, you have

touted your job-creating ables as utah's chief executive. in the private sector you said you helped create thousands of jobs as vice chairman of the huntsman corporation. of the 12,000 workers almost 10,000 were hired in china and india and other places outside the u.s.. isn't it accurate that you have more experience creating jobs overseas? >> i'm of my experience in the private sector. huntsman corporation is a terrific company. a wonderful example of a family entrepreneurial success story. created jobs to be sure, left -- left communites better than they've found them. created the huntsman cancer institute. if you want to build a facility in the united states, you can't. because of the epa's regulatory rein of terror. the percentage of our gdp from manufacturing is 10 or 11%.

when i was born i was 25%. it used to mean something when you read, made in america. we don't make things any more in this country. in order to that we need serious regulatory reform not just repealing obama care. we need to create a more competitive environment that speaks to real tax reform that allows our entrepreneurs and businesses to step up and get it done and expand our economic base and create jobs. i'm grateful for what huntsman corporation has done. it is a global company. you have to supply customers overseas. let's fix our core in this nation. let's get back on our feet. people are hurting, scared and concerned. >> thank you. congresswoman bachmann, you voted against the debt ceiling increase deal and against the republican's cut, cap and balance bill many you insisted the country was not at risk of default if you had your way

the debt ceiling would not have been raised. what do you say to analysts who insists that americans investments would have been far worse off today? >> it was very important that we not raise the debt ceiling, consider what happened. the congress gave barack obama a blank cheque for 2.4 trillion dollars. what about the american get in return? 21 billion in i will lose -- illusory cuts. from the time i've been in congress we've gone from 8.67 trillion in debt to 16.7. this is madness. i've been across iowa. people are almost unanimous, do not raise the debt ceiling. that was the right thing to do. the worst thing that you could do, is continue to borrow money and spend money that we don't have. >> what do you say to the analysts who say the markets would have -- >> i think we just heard from

standard & poor's. when they dropped our credit rating what they said is, we don't have an ability to repay our debt. that's what the final word was from them. i was proved right in my position. we should not have raised the debt ceiling. we should have cut government spending. which was not done. then we needed to get our spending priorities in order. >> mr. cain, do you agree with that? >> i do not agree with raising the debt ceiling, because the solution they came up with does not solve the problem, as representative bachmann talks about. the way to deal with it is pay those things that need to be paid and then make the tough choices of cutting the other things. agency by agency, program by program, based upon performance metrics. we didn't need to raise the debt ceiling. there was an easy way out and the problem still has not been solved.

standard & poor's has send a -- has sent a message. >> mr. cain, you say that we can boost job creation by eliminating tax on companies that bring back overseas profits to the u.s.. when we tried a tax break like this in 2004, companies just paid bigger dividends to shareholders. why would it work this time? >> for a number of reasons. i think you are looking at a small piece of it. it is a combination of things that i indicated. if you pick out one thing, that is not comprehensive. i talked about lowering the top corporate and personal tax rays to 25%. taking capital gains rates to zero. here's the big one, make them permanent. uncertainty is killing this company. if a company were to decide they were to pay a bigger dividend, so what, it is their money. the people receiving the dividends might be happy with

that. maybe that is the right thing to do. i'm not concerned -- [ applause ] >> i am not concerned about what they will do with that money if it is allowed to come back. i'm more concerned, bring it back so they will have an incentive to make some growth decisions. i don't know one company that talks about how we are going to standstill. it is about growth. that's what i'm about, growth in jobs and the economy. [ applause ] >> speaker gingrich, you say the unemployment problem in america has been made worse by the policies of the federal reserve. you call for auditing the fed and stripping it of its banking powers. congressman paul thinks the fed needs to be abolished. why is the fed worth saving? >> i think having some kind of central bank is an important part of how you deal with monetary policy in the modern world. i would say having chairman bernanke deal with hundreds of

billions of dollars, some estimates as much as 16 trillion, in secret is profoundly a free society. the feds should be totally audited, out in public. decision documents of '07, to '09 should be public. we should now who they bailed out and who they didn't bail out. it is a scandal that the federal reserve is secret. their monetary policy since the late 90s has been a major factor in the bubble created. the fed is going back as reagan did to sound money, certainly a key part of how you get back to prosperity. the fed is the primary villain in failing to have a sound money policy. [ applause ] >> congressman paul, is speaker gingrich wrong to want to save the fed? >> not exactly. my position isn't i closed the

door down immediately, you can phase it out. there are other things we can do in a transition phase. for instance, i'm delighted that mainstream is catching up with this, these days, this is great. [ applause ] >> i made a suggestion, and there's been quite a few who have supported me. we owe the fed 1.6 trillion in treasury bills. they created it out of thin air. we pay them interest on our books. we literally, with legislation would wipe 1.6 trillion off that is not a solution to the monetary problem or spending, if we give you a year to work this out we wouldn't have any of that debate going on. those were scare tactics to square people into doing things that is one thing we could do. we have to deal with the fed, the fed creates the business cycle. if you don't understand the

business cycle you don't know why we have recessions. the sooner we learn that, the better. [ applause ] >> thank you. senator santorum, you said that you were the tea party before there was a tea party. a tea party goal in iowa is to revert back to the goal standard, something you oppose. how do you consider yourself in line with the tea party without agreeing on this major issue? >> i didn't say that the "washington post" said that. i don't take the claim the tea party organization is flat and should stay that way support ideas not candidates. people who say they lead it, most of the tea party people think their leadership is among the people. what i've said is i agree with newt. i think there's reforms we can do at the fed. we need to audit the fed. disagree with most of what ron paul said. just because he's mostly wrong didn't moon he's always wrong. [ booing ]

>> i appreciate his contribution in that regard. i didn't get a chance to comment on this debt ceiling. congressman paul and congresswoman bachmann in the congress they couldn't lead the congress to do something responsible in making sure we didn't have the fiasco we have in place now. we should have balanced the budget. a balanced budget amendment should have been the focus from the beginning. to suggest we never need to raise the debt ceiling. again show manship, not -- showmanship, not leadership. we are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar. medicare, medicaid, social security, defense and interest on the debt is 60%. that means cut everything else and something of those. that's showmanship, not leadership. >> when we come back some closing remarks and maybe a wild card or two, we'll see.

motorcycles, boats, even rv's. nobody knows where he got his love for racing. all we know is, it started early. casey mears, driver of the number thirteen geico toyota camry. geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. [ male announcer ] this is our beach. ♪ this is our pool. ♪ our fireworks. ♪ and our slip and slide.

you have your idea of summer fun, and we have ours. now during the summer event get an exceptionally engineered mercedes-benz for an exceptional price. but hurry, this offer ends august 31st. and all we need to do is change the way we're thinking about them. a couple decades ago, we didn't even realize just how much natural gas was trapped irocks thounds of feet below us. technology has made it possible to safely unlock this cleanly burning natural gas. this deposits can provide us with fuel for a hundred years, providing energy security and economic growth all across this country. it just takes somebody having thidea, and that's where the discovery comes from.

the thinking that says we have to continue to raise the debt ceiling and spend money we don't have is >> the american people are asking for a very different, bold vision. i was the leading voice against raising the debt ceiling. noose what the american people want us to do, have our balanced budgets and have our spending priorities in order. that was the right thing to do. >> governor huntsman, this week, the obama administration announced they would grant waivers to some failing public school systems that couldn't meet the standard of the no child left behind program. if you were president, would you return to full enforcement of this bush-ar era law. >> no child left behind hasn't worked. we need to take education to the local level, where parents and local elected officials can determine the destiny of schools. nobody wants their schools to succeed more than local elected officials and their parents. we need choice, we need

vouchers. we need more technology in the classroom. but let me say, i'm the only one on this stage who stood up for the boehner deal against this nation's defaulting. i know i am different from everybody else in that regard. we are 25% of the world's gdp. we're the largest financial services sector, by far, in this entire world. and the thought that people would just let this nation default, when we could have a deal that gets things going on cut,eration the ceiling, gets us toward an entitlement reform and a balanced budget amendment. i think speaker boehner should be complimented this. nation should never default. >> mr. cane, if you were president, would you return to the full enforcement of the no child left behind law? >> no. i believe in education starting at the local level. no child left behind has some faults. i don't believe in unfunded mabdates. i believe the federal government should be out of the business of trying to micro-manage the

education of our children. >> their thank you, mr. cane. your answer had sm special lighting there. sorry, we had special lighting. time for closing comments. each candidate has 30 seconds to close. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the people of iwa. my family and i, karen and the kids came here 3 weeks ago. we have spent 3igate weeks here, enjoying the time, been to 51 cities in 15 days, been to 68 counties, not as many as chuck grassley, but almost. we're working very, very hard. national media may not pay a lot of attention to us, but we pay a lot of attention to iowa and new hampshire and south carolina. we will be working very hard to earn your trust, so you can kick the tires, someone with proven leadership and can get things done in washington, d.c. and been a consistent conservative. and guy who is can beat incumbent democrats -- three of them.

that's better than anybody else on this panel. >> mr. cane? >> it is clear from the discussion tonight that america needs a leader and a uniter. i represent growth. all. issues we talk about, if we don't get this economic engine moving by putting fuel in the engine, all of the rest of it won't matter. a poet once said, life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there is so much on the line. we have a lot on the line. send washington a message, send a business problem solver to washington, d.c. >> congressman paul? >> i have been in politics for 35 years. my cause has been the cause of liberty. and i am convinced that liberty did not come from our government but it comes from our creator. our goal should be peace and prosperity. the principles of liberty that you have the greatest chance of achieving peace and prosperity. that's why i am so down on the war, costing us trillions of

dollars, we have to reform the monetary system, why we need honest money -- a gold standard and not paper money from the federal reserve system. we need to hainch the environment for our businesses. we need to lower the regulations and the taxes and have private property rights and contract rights. then we can achieve peace and real prosperity. [cheering] >> governor romney? >> this country is in economic crisis. i think the people of this country understand that. and we have, unfortunately, as a leader of the country, a man who is out of his depth and doesn't understand what is needed to do to get this economy going again. he just doesn't understand how the economy works because he hasn't live in the real economy. i think in order to create jobs, it is helpful to have had a job. i fundamentally believe that what we need in this country is someone who is willing to go to work who believes in america, in free enterprise, who believes in

capitalism who, believes in opportunity and freedom. i am that person. i love this country. i will do everything in my power to keep america the hope of the earth. thank you. i would love your help. >> congresswoman bachmann. >> the good news is, two years and two days from now, all of us have a chance to send a message to washington, d.c. about what we think about barack obama and his presidency. he got started here in iowa. and now iowa can bring that presidency effectively to a close. i want to do that as president of the united states. i am inviting everyone to come to this straw poll and let's send a message to washington that they can't miss. >> governor pawlenty? >> god has greatly blessed america. but with great blessing comes responsibility. and if we don't fiercely protect our most precious blessing -- freedom -- we may lose it forever. now is the time for effective,