but i tell you who's got something, grand slam team, full of all-stars, "forbes" on fox is next. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] david: forget stimulus one and two. you want to stimulus our economy? dish out more food stamps and welfare. a flip side you're only going to hear on "forbes on fox." hi, everybody, i'm david asman. thanks for joining us. here with us today, rich, elizabeth, neil, along with mike, evelyn and quinton. neil, more food stamps? >> i'm not saying i agree or disagree with stimulus, but if you want to get the money out the door, and these are spoon-ready programs, 9 % of this money that you spent out in food stamps gets spent that money. in addition, we have over 30 million people that are relying on this, and for every dollar

you sent out, it increases money. this is a stimulus. >> i thought we all agreed that welfare is a drag not only on the economy, but on the individuals who take t. >> absolutely. look, everybody this is a failed policy. it does not stimulate the economy t. accomplishes increasing the government debt or taking money from one person and handing it to another person. it does not grow the economy. >> and quinton, doesn't it create a sense of dependency very often on the people who take it? >> shame on you, shaved. ronald reagan never produced his welfare queen. that's a myth. david: wait a minute, wait a minute. bill clinton said the same thing, quinton. >> it's a myth! they couldn't produce them. these people are poor and hungry, and you feed them. what's what we do. does it stimulate the economy? that's not the issue. look, the matter is we had these tax cuts that didn't work. we had your house as a cash machine that dent work. we got a credit overhang so small business can't get loans. you got to work through those

things. but in the mean am, you people the poor. david: if it was just a matter of money going from the government to feed the poor, loft people wouldn't have a problem, but that sense of dependency does neglect but stimulate the economy. >> quenton doesn't know what he's talking about. the reagan revolution produced a 25-year boom -- >> no, you feed the poor. >> and now it's 10%. so, you know, we got to still plate with the right stuff. david: evelyn? >> you have to look beyond the risk of undependency. when you have unemployment at 9 -plus percent, that's a problem. food stamps, it is a quick jolt to the economy, that money that goes towards food will help local businesses, as well as big stores, those supermarkets. and that will in turn encourage job growth. >> so is it a stimulus or not? >> yeah, you do have to protect the poor. but the par say they want jobs, and how do you create jobs? rich is absolutely right.

you talk about a multiplier effect. we didn't need a corporate bailout am we needed corporate tax cut. that would have created jobs for the poor. you know, the multiplier effect of corporate tax cuts is $1 to $2. neil says $1 to $4 for stimulus spending. no, tax cuts are way more effective, as a one to three multiplier effect. they're better than a bailout. david: wouldn't jobs be a better solution? >> as quinton pointed out, the problem is poor not creating them right now. so if we agree that a stimulus is good, but if you're trying to still police and get economic data this month, this works better than creating jobs, because the jobs are going to take a while. david: there may be a time lag from the time that you proposed the tax cuts to the time that jobs are actually created. >> well, yeah, there might be a time lag, but you've got to do the right things to ensure you have a boom that lasts five or 10 years, just as the reagan revolution that produced a boom that lasted 25. now we're in a world of howard,

c.e.o.'s are too demoralized to help people. >> you're always touting the growth during the growth administration. everything seems to be rosy. didn't a lot have to do with the fact that doesn't didn't have to work out all this welfare money. >> look, i may not know what i'm talking about, but i do know the unemployment rate was high for a while, and it was his defense spending and federal spending that made a big difference in kick starting things. as rich can tell you, north dakota ising too well right now, and it gets more money per capita than any other state. david: we're not getting an answer from quinton about the clinton administration, but they changed welfare pofledse dramatically. the republicans and democrats agreed to cut it back, and we had a boom. >> well, government spending overall was held in check and cutting back on welfare spending was aing about part of it. if you look at periods where we had increases in welfare

spending, guess what, welfare roles went way up, like in the 1960's. if you increase welfare payments, your welfare will increase -- number of people on welfare is going to increase, which is bad. you don't want that quinton. >> and actually, people on the welfare rolls, they don't want this culture of dependency. they don't want to be trapped on the food stamp line. they want a job. by the way, north dakota, that should be a sign that the bailout, the stimulus plan is failing. that you want money if you meaned to states like nevada or michigan, where the unemployment is really high. so how do you get -- how do you create jobs? i think rich and mike, they're asking the right questions. how do you do it? corporate tax cut, where the highest -- one of the highest in the world in corporate tax rates. >> but it's not just about dependency here. it's about being able to put food on the table. that's really the only way they can do that if they don't have a job, food statches. whether this is a burden on local governments, the food stamp program is a is a

national organization. >> what's the best way to help the poor? keeping them on the dole or be product snive i would say they really do want to be product and i have make money for their own families. >> everyone's talking about social policy. they need to feed the poor. but the point is we're trying to stimulus the economy here. that's the point of the bill. what would be a staster constitutes police, i would say rates should be cut drastically and cut way back on government spending. we need a policy from the federal reserve where we have a sound dollar. david: what's that smile all about, rich? >> well, the smile is that, you know, the american venture capital industry has created one job per every $30,000 of investment over the last 30 years. you know, that's the kind of multiplier effect we're talking about, and you get that by cutting the marginal rates on capital gains. elizabeth is exactly right about the corporate rate, and maybe it should be linked to jobs. you know, we have the second

highest in the world behind japan, and japan is not been job creation machine over the last 20 years either. >> you're touting the multiplier he will fect. >> sure, but tax cuts are good for the long run. but when you have a crisis, when you have unemployment high, then you should use food stamps and other wamplee programs in order to get spending in the money as much as soosms >> what about as a very short-term solution to a problem? >> you give a person a food stamp, he's not going to add together. david: that's the last board. sinful spending? sarah palin check in yesterday. but first, ronald reagan and pope john paul ii, they both helped take down communism. now someone says our current

settlement. more headlines for you 30 minutes from now. keep it on fox. david: a president and a pope can make a powerful duo. take ronald reagan and john paul ii. they both helped knock down the berlin wall. fast forward to today, president obama and pope benedict xvi meeting yesterday at the vatican. both men pushing for "greater social responsibility" and "working for the common good." rich says this duo could do to american capitalism what reagan

and john paul ii did to soviet communism. really, rich? >> well, look, ronald reagan and john paul ii were the two most important figures in the second half of the 20th century. they had a deep, abiding belief in individual freedom and the morality that ensues from individual freedom. pope benedict and president obama are going the other way. i'm not accusing them of trying to wreck capitalism, but clearly they're going the other way. they're making all the mistakes that we were warned about. david: but jack jack, this is a pope who worked hard with the last pope who kicked off popular theology, or the marxist movement within the catholic church. >> absolutely the church has a long history of respecting market economies and respecting the ability of free markets to lift individuals out of poverty into prosperity. and i think a closer read of this from pen edict says exactly that, says that there is an opportunity for

globalization, for free trade, to stimulate the global economy. i mean, he was using these terms. i think this rush to judgment that he's somehow aligning himself with obama's ideology is misguided. david: so elizabeth, are they anti-capitalists or what? >> no, look, jesus, by the way, mortal sins of capitalism have been around since jesus tossed some money changers out of the temple, and, you know, thomas aquinas through pope john paul, they were all talking about a free market turning into a free-for-all and the guard rails coming off. the pope is saying the same thing. but he's also, watch this, wausm for a true world authority to overseat markets. i don't see the white smoke coming out of ben bernanke's office, you know, that he's going to be the uber regulator. i don't know if that could even work. that may be a little bit over the top. david: when you think, evelyn, of what the u.n. did with oil for good, you don't want them in charge of that you will cash. >> of course. but the thing is obama is not against capitalism.

this is not a united front against capitalism. all the governments in the world are looking at the situation, stepping back from years of excess and greed, and thinking about how we need more regulation to ensure that this capitalist system can work. i don't think that this is a front against capitalism. david: but at a time when capitalism is under attack from aloft sources, wouldn't it be nice if they throw at least a bone to all of the progress we've had because of it? >> well, unlike jack, up did not read the whole ecumenical, so i can't exactly vouch for the pope. but i don't think this is going to hurt capitalism. we have had excesses, as evelyn suggested. we've had a system where, for example, the wealthy who get aloft capital gains have had very tax rates compared to the working class. people have much higher tax rates on their regular income. so i think there are ways we can balance the system and make it a little more fair, make it so that our wealth is spread a little more evenly without wrecking capitalism. david: so you can have capital wism morality together, and that's what the message is? >> i think that's right. but i'll tell you, the pope is far more radical than obama. in section seven, he talks

about the good of the individual and the good of the community. that's like obama. in 35 to 37, he talks about redistribution of wealth. in section 40, he talks about new business models that aren't necessarily obedient to shareholders. that isn't american capitalism at all. i think the pope looks out on a g-8 meet where they're not making good on their promises to help africa, and he looks out on a financial collapse caused by the developed world that is hurting the developing world far worse and his blood is boiling. just as it did for john paul, by the way. david: as elizabeth said, he is supposed to be against certain sins like greed and that sort of thing, and there is a lot of greed in capitalism. >> absolutely. there's no doubt that american capitalism needs guard rails. but when you look at redistribution of wealth, when obama says that, it's in the peter pan context, taking from one, giving to someone else. in the pope's context, it's free trade. it's the ability to exchange goods and services to allow others to rise through prosperity from poverty t. david: so you got to re-read that, because according to jack, it's very pro capitalist.

>> well, perhaps i should. but look, the vatican has always been at its best when it respects and promotes individual dignity. the vatican has always been at its worst when it's all for central authority. so this central authority theme is really disturbing. >> yeah, it is disturbing, but i think wall street will just ignore it people the like in cyclical. to them, it's another papal post-it. they're going to carry along their merry way. but the issue is what is happening here in this country and when it comes to regulating the markets is we have bureaucrats deciding, bureaucrats who never put on a business suit. they're basically lawyers or, you know, career politicians. and so these are the ones deciding. you know, you have these guys down in washington redesigning the entire u.s. economy, you know, by writing them down on legal pads. that's kind of scary. >> i get a little scared when i hear about a world regulator. now, that's scary, and there are a lot of regional and national differences, and that could seriously hurt capitalism. that's where i say back off. david: could it be, quinton,

that the pope is a bit naive about this idea of a central regulating authority in the world? >> i don't think he's calling for that, but in section 40, jack, he's against outsourcing. he's pretty radical guy. but he looks out on a world where we've had the magic of the market, largely around self interests and not around a sense of a common good, and he sees an america where the walton family has more wealth than the poorest 100 million americans, and he thinks that's wrong. you judge it defrpblt, so be it. >> i just have to remind you, he said worldwide dwution of prosperity should not be held up by projects that are protectionist. he's very much in favor of globalization of free trade, of free market that can help foster prosperity in developing nations. >> and he also talks about political control for charity. >> and he is calling for a true world political authority to oversee the markets. that's where you think he'd see the danger zone. david: all pray for more guidance tomorrow. when we come back -- >> daddy has been the best

father you could ever imagine. david: paris jackson saying goodbye to her dad. someone here says her heart-felt words just wiped away michael jackson's tarnished image and his death. 5

>> i just wanted to say i love him.

>> ever since i was born, daddy

has been the best father you can ever imagine. and i just wanted to say i love him so much. david: mike jackson's 11-year-old daughter letting the world know she thought the world of her dad. she left tens of millions wiping away the tears, and someone here says she also just wiped away michael jackson's debt. evelyn, how so? >> paris jackson's speech gave the world access to a side of michael jackson few had access to, and that was as a loving father who cared and protected his kids. that can only help his fortune in the future. so i think that, you know, when it comes to his memorabilia and songs, people will continue to listen to this far long after his death. and i think his memorabilia will only gain in value in the future. david: so neil, this will resonate much longer and harder than all those charges against him about child abuse? >> i don't think so. you got to think about his family and how they were

capitalizing on this, his father using his death to promote his record label. i think they will do additional bizarre things that will wipe away some of the good will we've seen right now. david: you think they'll remain in debt? >> i think they'll do themselves more harm. david: will this help or hurt the jackson fortune long term? >> the lies, the overspending, the weird narcissism, the sex scandals, the corruption, the media circuses, can america forgive the republican party after sarah palin? david: oh, get off it! >> look, there's an important difference here you're forgetting. he had glamour. and look, princess diana wasn't the best mom, let's face t. elvis was not the best sanger. and michael jackson wasn't the best denser. look at the nicholas brothers and gene kelly tough don't believe. but the world loves that and it focuses on that when they die just like elvis and princess di and james dean. they will focus on that part, and it will be a long career for this guy.

david: by the way, i think elvis was a great singer, but what do you think about jackson here? >> child molestation is possibly the worst thing that one human being can do to another short of murder. so for quinton to compare that to sarah palin, what is she guilty of, or even mark san ford? i would be a early of jackson stock right now. david: a seller, there's nothing that can override those charges. >> well, i don't know that that's the case. in this case, i think it was an incredibly touching farewell, and it humanized him in many ways. but what's going to save the empire here is the music. he is sitting on some extremely valuable assets, not only his own catalogue, as well as what they're saying now. david: so you think it's a wash? >> he's sitting on his own catalogue, the beatles catalogue, and he also has 200 unpublished songs out there. david: but when you compare that one heart-felt, teary farewell, with all the charges against him, don't the charges weigh more? >> with all the controversy and all the charges, he was still incredibly popular. he still whipped people into a frenzy everywhere he went,

whether that was u.s. or abroosmed the legacy of michael jackson will live on. this is not the last we'll hear of him. david: the legacy of michael jackson, what do you think it will be? >> look, good or bad, you know, they will argue, the charges were never proven, he was never convicted, and the estate will focus on the music and the time when you were young and you went crazy for it and, you know, like it or not, in american culture, death foregives aloft sins. david: last word from quinton hardy. when we come back, the stocks when we come back, the stocks

so, april... yeah? you know, your charger is still using energy when it's plugged into the wall, right? yeah, but that's not my charger. i don't even have a cell phone. [ballad ringtone playing] uh-oh. um... [music stops] heh. announcer: millions of kids are using their energy wisely. 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.

david: it was another week for stocks. the dow stumbling after that 34% runup the first half of the year. so where's a safe place to park your cash in this shaky market? you're not a breaker at work. >> buy a vault from home depot. keep a bar of gold in your home. gold is a great thing to buy before inflation kicks in. david: neil, gold bars?

>> welcome to the cookie. it costs a fortune to buy and sell and its long-term returns are lousy. david: so you're saying drink up? >> drink up. diageo. david: they sell aloft liquor. >> we're talking about vodka, johnny walker whiskey. it's inexpensive and global. david: jack? >> unfortunately, a lot of the input costs of these alcoholic beverages i believe are going to rise, cut into the margins of diageo and hurt stock. david: but we'll always be interested in defense and space. >> that's right. if anything holds true, it will be defense contractors, long-term budget, their ability for to have long term extract money from the government. they're going to have to continue to spend at a certain level, and raytheon is a great place to be to benefit from that. david: and the stock is trading low, time to get in. >> because the market knows obama's going cut our missile defense system to virtually nothing. that's going hurt raytheon. david: what happens if that happens? >> raytheon does a lot of electronic components to some of the aircraft and other vessels in our defense industry, so i think that's a safe place to be, not necessarily the missile defense