>> at least you didn't burn down the prop like did you last week with those damn sparklers. >> we expended our budget last week. brenda: neil cavuto next. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] >> more calls in washington for it, even though most americans oppose it, and the it i'm talking about, a second round of stimulus. so who's got it right? i'm charles payne in for neil cavuto, let's get reaction from ben stine, doingen mcdowell, adam, along with ron and damen. neil will be back next week. this week, one of president obama's top economic advisors saying america needs a second surge of stimulus planning, but a news poll showing 60% saying no, thanks. did a majority of americans have it right? >> oh, absolutely. the first stimulus was a disaster. $787 billion, nobody read the bill.

only about 10% of it goes out the door in the first year. it was just a democratic party payoff bill, basically taxing everybody, including republicans, to pay off democratic interest groups. this thing was a fraud. >> and then, ben, should we point out, i think you were for the first one initially, too. >> now, bear in mind, i was for the idea of stimulus, and i still am for the idea of stimulus. i'm not for the idea of just taking this huge lump of money and using it to pay off democratic special interest groups f. they could have gotten half the money out the door in the first, say, eight months, i think the thing would have worked, or at least had some effect. but as it, is it's just a way of transforming money from republicans and independents to democrats. it's not a legitimate stimulus bill. >> damon, that's one of the big beefs with this whole thing. it was bait and switch from the very beginning, or did it just morph into a disaster? >> i don't think it's morphed into a disaster. you've got -- you've got an

economy that needs money pumped into it. >> yeah, but this isn't doing the job. so this is $800 billion, $700 billion. what happened? >> it's not all that much money. you've got $52 trillion of swap trades that are on the banks' balance sheets. we know they already got $2 trillion. why not take care of some americans? these are the consumers, these are the people that actually activate the economy. and whether it gets to them by graph or in every way, shape, or form, at least in some way, even a guy that's ripping off the u.s. government, is spending the money somewhere, even if it's an ill-gotten porsche. >> that he wants the most preposterous thing i've ever heard so. let's just throw away the constitution. why don't we just take all the money from anyone who voted for mccain and give it all to people who voted for mr. obama? >> well, thank god. well, here's the -- ben, here's the problem -- ben, here's the problem. the suicide rate for the first time in 10 years is rising. and you know what's even more

particularly curious about that? >> so what the hell does that have to do with the stimulus package? >> because it has to do with the human suffering of americans. >> doingen, let me go to dagen one second here. dagen? >> i'm in favor of helping people to not sumplet i've been in favor that have since long before you were born, but i'm not in favor of stealing from one group and giving it to another political interest group. >> american citizens -- ben, are american citizens a special interest group or are they just human beings? >> no, no, but democrats are special interest groups. unions are a special interest group. let's give the money to everybody in need, not just to people who happen to be democrats. >> can i jump in, charles, please? >> go ahead, adam. >> i hope you have the bags ready for the people suffocating themselves. >> let's have a realistic conversation here, both of you. for starters, the stimulus was a good idea when it started because it raised people's confidence levels, and we badly needed that when the bill was

passed. but ben is right. he's speaking truth to power here. the way it's been implemented has not been good. we could have done a much better job. we still can do a much better job of implementing it. that's why we should hold off on doing a second one. and come on, saying that giving it to people who steal, because they spend, that's craziness. that's not the way we want to run our government. >> dagen, first you were saying that it did not really matter either. up did not say people, but you said as long as the money went out there, it would be effective. >> if it went out there quickly, charles. and i am in ben's camp. i was certainly initially for stem plus if it impacted the economy quickly. but the bulk of this will hit the economy next year. the lawmakers made their bed, we have to lie in it, and they have to suck it up and hold their breaths and wait for it to kick in. you can't throw more money at the problem. and one thing that's really disturbing, you cited that report that 60% of americans don't want a second stimulus. well, 68% thinks that it's at

least somewhat likely that we will still get one. so what does that say about the faith of the american people in our lawmakers that we don't want it, but we're still going to get it. and that's a bit despicable. >> it is a bit despicable. ron, also the fact that it's going to come next year, but the bottom line, though, is that it's not going to what it was supposed to go to. >> well, that's obvious. to be honest, i think this is stimulus number three. i mean, didn't the first one get passed as a stimulus and then all the sudden turn into tarp? >> during the bush administration. >> this is number three. the first one didn't work. the second one didn't work. what you know? this one they're saying that's number two that's actually number three isn't going to work either. and the reason is -- it's not so much the amount of water in the pond, it's the fact that the pumps aren't pumping. you can sit there and turn the pumps off and you'll get algae in your pool. throw more money in there, all you have is a bigger pool with more algae. you've got to get the pump

pumping. >> you don't know that they didn't work. i mean, this is a complicated conversation. you can say that because we're at 9.5% unemployment -- >> whoa. you said we -- excuse me -- >> i'm not finished. you can say because we're at this high level of unemployment it didn't work, and i can tell you we can be at 12% if we hadn't done t. all i'm saying is that i think we're in agreement that it hasn't been implemented well and we shouldn't do another one. and by the way, there are all sorts of other problems that have been in place. the fed pumping money into the system. these things also have helped, and we're not -- >> all i'm saying is if his argument before was that he didn't think that it didn't work because at the time we needed confidence, well, wait a second. we don't have any confidence right now. so obvious it will didn't work. it's against his argument. >> i think this isn't too early to say that this is a failure. what do you think? >> oh, it's clearly a failure. i mean, clearly, just by the fact that only a tiny percentage tv has gone out the door in the most crucial time when it was needed shows it's a failure. clearly the fact that it's tied

up in all kinds of special interest groups connected to the democratic party shows it's a failure. look, we need to get that money out right away. i think, frankly, an income tax republican fund may be involved in whether or not a person actually pays tax is a good idea, just writing out paychecks to people is a good idea. but just channeling it into unions, that's very questionable. >> damon, you have to admit, democrat after democrat after democrat coming out and saying, something sent right. mayors are saying something sent right. other politicians are saying something isn't right. this seems like universally it's being viewed as a major failure and something else has to be done. >> i mean, at the end of the day, they are going to keep pumping money out in the economy. we've got to mitigate human suffering. but beyond that, wee got to think about what our end game is, and it's about jobs. &sharing prosperity through increased productivity and exporting goods to the world that the world needs. >> dagen, that sounds great, but -- danger, there's been no jobs so far. >> and unemployment rate is

likely to rise for months and months to come. but that's what we're going to have to face. we know they passed this, lawmakers on the right and left didn't read the doggone thing. they made it. you got to stick with it at this point. and we're going to face higher unemployment. >> forget stimulus ii. the folks at forbes have their own plan to still police the economy, hand out more food stamps and welfare. that's a flip side i won't miss. but first, a new democratic health plan includes -- here's a had not -- it rhymes with jar, and someone here says that the czar is a guarantee that the czar is a guarantee that s slacker hip-hop. ♪ singer: buckle up, everybody 'cause we're taking a ride ♪ ♪ that can strain your relationships and hurt your pride ♪ ♪ it's the credit roller coaster ♪ ♪ and as you can see it kinda bites! ♪ ♪ so sing the lyrics with me: ♪ when your debt goes up your score goes down ♪ ♪ when you pay a little off it goes the other way 'round ♪ ♪ it's just the same for everybody, every boy and girl ♪ ♪ the credit roller coaster makes you wanna hurl ♪ ♪ so throw your hands in the air, and wave 'em around ♪ ♪ like a wanna-be frat boy trying to get down ♪

♪ then bring 'em right back to where your laptop's at... ♪ ♪ log on to free credit report dot com - stat! ♪ vo: free credit score and report with enrollment in triple advantage.

most powerful names in news, and check out foxnews.com. >> i bet neil was here for this one. drum roll! a new czar. that's right, democrats pushing for a grand pooh-ba to oversee the national health insurance plans, ron says this is just a back door to nationalize healthcare. what do you mean by that? >> in his campaign promises, you know, president obama said that he was going to do something about healthcare. i don't think he's going to get the bill passed the way it is. knowing that you're going to run into a little too much opposition, and i think he knows that it was probably a long shot to begin with. but what he's doing now is he's hedging his bet, like any good trader would. he's basically putting the czar in power so that way if the bill doesn't get passed the way he wants it, he's got another in. and this way he puts his

signature on the changing of the healthcare in america. >> but obama is not the one pushing this particular plan. it's a democrat in the house that's pushing it. >> they're all linked, come on. i mean, that's obvious. i mean, it's a democratic thing, obviously. obama is definitely the figure head here. but he's not -- if he doesn't get that passed, then this is the alternative. this is his backup plan. >> adam, do you think that makes any sense? do you think this czar boove so much power that he or she would be able to do all the things that national healthcare could do as well if it's not passed? >> no, i mean, i think i could close my eyes and wish really hard that ron's tie were blue and not red, but you know what, it would still be red. i don't think that this is some sort of back door plan to have nationalized healthcare in america. i don't like the idea of czars. i've said it a bunch of times. but if we're going to have a coordinated effort on something, then it's not outrageous to have one person report to the president on that. >> but you know, ben, this is what i find confusing. if we don't have national healthcare, if it doesn't make it through congress, then why

would we have a czar anyway? >> because the czar is going to do my proctoscopy. what does that mean, having a czar? i mean, what does it mean that a czar is going to be in charge? look, a czar is a bad, unresponsive, murder outs person. a czar is not a good person. what is it with all these czars? we have a congress. we have the president. we have the supreme court. there's nothing in the constitution about zars. and by the way, having a czar doesn't guarantee anything except one more layer of bureaucracy. we do not get things done by appointing more bureaucrats. we get things done by the ingenuity of the american people. >> dagen, what's crazy about this is that you have congress people who are pushing for this new czar, so it's partner that these czars are going to diminish the power of congress. >> and the states. >> and states. so why would any member of congress even be behind something like this? >> because they can, you know, pull the strings. they could be the puppet masters, in effect.

>> but wouldn't the puppet master be the white house? >> supposedly. but you've seen the power that the white house has handed in congress in writing a lot of this legislation, particularly the stimulus package and now healthcare and cap and trade. but that's the troubling thing about any government intervention, greater government intervention. you're talking about added bure increase, as ben pointed out. and if you look at what we already have, medicare's broke. it is broken. the hospital fund is going to go bankrupt, out of money in 2017. so why do we think that more government with healthcare is going to be a good thing? nobody seems to be able to answer that. they're not even focused on fixing medicare in the first place. >> so ron, back to you. this is something that really has you heated. what do you think the chances are right now? you don't think healthcare is going to make it through? >> no, and i don't think we should have a czar either. >> you don't think they're going to tax the sexritch get the healthcare through? >> well, they're going to try. but, you know, you have to remember, when you talk about

political power, that's where it lies, in the hands of the rich. >> it lies in the hands of the reich? >> i think so, yeah. >> really? >> sure. i contribute to your campaign, right? >> well, ben, you got to say this is different, because wasn't this the campaign of grass roots where individuals contributed $25, $50? isn't this supposed to be change and different, where the voice of the people is heard, and certainly people in this case don't include the rich. >> well, i think the rich democrats are the ones who call the tune. i mean, the fact is, in the last campaign, the democrats got the overwhelming majority of very large contributions, as well as medium and small contributions. i think the rich always control everything, frankly. but at this point, it's the liberal rich, maybe someday in the future it won't be. but by the way, i don't think there's going to be that many rich the way things are going. >> a lot of reports agree with you. thanks a lot, guys. well, you satisfy this high-class resort? turns out a high-priced government conference just took place there to the tune of $700,00

>> how would you like to vacay >> how would you like to vacay eck out our new champagne

indulgence shade collection at naturalinstincts.com. >> champagne wishes and caviar dreams. that's right, the biltmore hotel in arizona, the jewel of the zerkts it's luxurious and expense sifment you should know. you just got stuck with a $700,000 bill for this weekend's jaunt there. no, not for you. for social security workers. they were attending a seminar there. now, isn't this the kind of thing the government was slam willing private companies for?

ron, you smem a rat, or hypocrisy at the very least, don't you? >> well, i don't think we should really look at the amount of money that's spent here. i think it's a matter of the fact that, you know, right now, we need leadership. and we need leadership by example. you know, we have the federal government telling people to tighten their belts. you're going to have to, you know, understand we've got to bail out this bank with your money, blah, blah, tighten up. and here they go spending. and obviously right in front of everybody's face. you can't sit there and try to get people to do what you want them to do unless you're willing to do it too. and it's a terrible example of leadership from an administration that's supposedly the new leadership. >> absolutely. adam, we're looking at big banks that have failed. they have gotten hundreds of billions of dollars. general motors, $80 billion. a.i.g., $180 billion, and the government's getting money. when do regular people get a piece of their own tax money? >> well, almost all this stuff is a sideshow, charles. it's a prurient distraction. i'm not going to sit here and tell thaw we should be sending these people to the biltmore.

it's a lovely resort. i've never been there. i've been near, it but not actually in the door there. but do i think it's a bad idea to have a seminar for the people who are running our social security system to train themselves and educate themselves? no, maybe they needed a resort this size. we're arguing about the wrong thing here. >> but why did they turn you away? that's what i'm wondering. >> i did not say i was turned away. >> ok. but ben, though, when public hears about this type of thing, that's a big number, $700,000 for a seminar. this is nuts. >> well, actually, going to phoenix in the summer is nobody's idea of luxury, to tell you the truth. it's sort of like for tumplete i've been to the biltmore very many times it's a wonderful hotel. adam, you're welcome to come join me next time i go. look, this recession was not caused by business meetings. this recession was not caused by business travel. this recession was not caused by people getting together to share their experience. this recession was caused by wildly irresponsible banking and finance and government

behavior. the idea of clamping down on meeting social security just pure sadism, pure class warfare, plus envy, pure stupidity. no understanding whatsoever. this economy was not caused by business meetings. it will not be cured by it. the whole thing is just ridiculous. >> but at some point, danger, talking about the recession, we can't get out of it if we continue to spends money like $700,000 on a seminar. >> well, that's actually stimulus. this is instant stimulus much the money that hasn't gone in from the stimulus package, that's money that went into one of the hardest hit economies in the country in arizona, if up to the look at it that way. but ben, what you're saying is business meetings didn't get us into this problem, but the bigger concern now is government spending. i know this is a small drop in the become the, but ultimately we want uncle sam to be responsible with our money, so maybe it's similar blues of that. >> it's not that fancy a hotel. it's a beautiful hotel. >> i've stayed there, too.

not with you. >> plenty more expensive that your husband should be taping you to. >> if they held this at a holiday inn and the tab was $400,000 -- >> it's not about the money. and i'm not saying that they shouldn't have a meeting. did anybody ever hear of a tell he conference? there's a lot of ways of doing meetings nowadays. it's not the money that i'm concerned about, to be quite honest. it's a matter of having confidence. you don't build confidence in the bhub turn around and tell them not to do something and you go out and do t. it's a matter of leadership and confidence, not about business meetings and whether $700,000 put us in the hole. stop. that's ridiculous. >> they'll think twice about it if known a fox camera is going show up next time. >> put me in, coach, because i'm ready to play and guy. that's right, we've got our own all-star team. [ woman ] this is what the inside of strong bone looks like.

now i want to warn you about a bone disease you may not feel, can't see and could easily ignore -- post-menopausal osteoporosis. please, don't ignore it. because osteoporosis means that over time, your bones gradually become weaker and can break more easily. see the weakness here? there is something you can do about it. call 1-800-316-4952 now for your free information kit. you'll see the difference between strong bone and osteoporotic bone, weakened and prone to fracture. you'll find ways to help reverse bone loss and help prevent fractures. you'll learn how to help maintain strong bones, a way to treat post-menopausal osteoporosis and things to discuss with your doctor. so call 1-800-316-4952 now. it's too important to ignore. osteoporosis. you can't see it, you may not feel it. but you can do something. call now. finally, good news for people with type 2

diabetes or at risk for diabetes. introducing new nutrisystem d, the clinically tested program for losing weight and reducing blood sugar. hi i'm mike, and i lost 100 pounds on nutrisystem d when i was first diagnosed with diabetes, that first step was more like a giant leap. till i discovered nutrisystem d. in a clinical study people on nutrisystem d lost 16 times more weight and reduced their blood sugar 5 times more than those on a hospital-directed plan. plus a1c was reduced .9%. choose from over 140 menu options, there is no counting carbs, calories or points. i lost 100 lbs. and lowered my blood sugar level. nutrisystem d changed my life. mike is one of many who have lost weight and controlled their diabetes with new nutrisystem d. backed by 35 years of research and low glycemic index science nutrisystem d works. satisfaction guaranteed or your money back! new! nutrisystem d. lose weight. live better. call or click today. t.

where did my goat go? well, it went to a family who really needed it. just like the heifer cow i used to have, and the water buffalo-- which was really too big for my place anyway. but why send livestock? why not...tractors? because giving an animal is like giving someone a small business-- all that wool, the milk, the eggs... turn into income ... for medicine, school, clothing, a better home, a sustainable livelihood. it even produces... fertilizer for crops. and of course, it makes more livestock ... 'cause animals make baby animals - that's what they do. next thing you know, the family you gave your gift to is "passing on the gift" of the animal's offspring to another family who does the same thing... and so on and so on until, pretty soon, you've helped lift an entire community out of poverty. all with your gift to heifer international. that is a recipe for lasting change.

>> they say america's pastime is bible, but our gang says it's making money. they're ready to show you their all-star picks right now. ben, what's your all-star investment? >> spider, the index fund, s&p 500 fund. god only knows where this economy is going. let's hope in 20 years it's better. i don't have anything any pick, just the index itself. >> wrbling you hit a picture in your picture on the screen. >> i can't agree with that right now. i think in the long terges i'll agree. but i think that technically right now, the spiders look really bad, along with the other indexes. there's a real good shot we're going back. i like baker hughes, an oil service stock. technically looks good. >> even with oil free-falling? >> it's only going to free-fall for a little while. >> adam, what do you think about that? >> i think this stock is cheap for a reason. drillers would not be the way that i would go with energy. i think you're right. you asked the right question,

charles. >> so what you are hitting out of the park? >> a mutual fund. it's got a home slew of stars. it's called oppenheimer international growth. it's got a manager who's been at that time for a long time, broad exposure to the global economy and not expense active in terms of management fees. >> damon? >> no, i don't like that one. the emerging markets are really coming under pressure. and the united states is the biggest consumer of global -- >> what do you like, damon? >> i like the e.d.z., the emerging markets triple bear e.t.f. i believe it's up today as we speak. and i think it could go substantially higher. >> the emerging markets. ben, you like this one? >> i think it's very dangerous for amateurs to go short on the market. the emerging markets are notoriously chaotic and unpredictable in their movements. it might be good for a professional, but for the ordinary citizen, way too risky. >> guys, thanks a lot. your photos all look fantastic. the mets and yankees ain't got no