foreclosu"forbes on fox". keep it right here. "cashin' in" is starting ining . [captioning made possible by fox news channel] >> government run healthcare is coming at us like a steamroller. >> no! >> but would the healthcare train be derailed if america simply demands congress has to use the plan they are coming up with? >> i'm into nuggets. >> here is what they are not into. taxes. mcdonald's is leaving england to escape the tax man. will america feel the same bite and keep unemployment sky high? plus, nanny state on steroids? a plan to keep deadbeats in their homes letting them pay rent instead of mortgage. >> you owe me rent. >> guess who will really be

paying the bills. you. all that and be rich and miserable or poor and happy. >> i just want to smash your face in. >> smash my face. >> that is the choice the recession is leaving some americans. what has love got to do with it? nothing when it comes to cash. your money, your life. your show to stay ahead of the game. "cashin' in" starts right now. terry: democrats in congress demanding a public option for public run healthcare. they are making their own demand. lawmakers should have to enroll in the very plan that they are pushing on you. is it time congress should be forced to take its own medicine. welcome to "cashin' in." our crew this week wayne rogers, jonathan hoenig and the other crew.

john lafyfield will be back nex week. one dirty little secret from bill is congress is going to be exempt from the public option even though democrats in congress are pushing for it for the rest of us. is that fair? >> it is not only not fair, it what are they, elitistelitists? they think they are better than we are? are they better than their constituents? if their constituents care, why should they opinion a separate, better plan than their own constituency? it is outrageous. not only that. and this is in the house bill. in the senate bill they are saying you have to accept this and that in the committee only passed by one vote, i think it was 12-11. why are nine democrats -- and i don't understand this -- why are nine democrats against this? i mean for this.

against making the congress take the same health plan that we have to take? there is something wrong here. somebody is getting paid off. they are crooks again. throw them out. terry: jonathan, are those 535 members used to their gold-plated health plan? >> and i don't want to force it on them, terry. i don't think force is a part of this country. this country is not based on force. it is based on freedom. the very notion of a public plan or public option that you are forced to participate in is not an option. the case is to stop with the notion that healthcare is a right because as soon as you make it a right you are forcing other people to provide it. that is what we should be focusing on, not forcing congress -- >> this is going to happen because everything seems to be out of capitalist control and the worst part of this is the surrender tax they will throw on this.

it won't hit half of them because their salary caps at 200 grand and they will push off the money so not only are they not paying for it, they won't partake in it. it is one big hypocrisy. guest: doesn't jonathan have a point? we will be stuck with it. doesn't matter what happens. >> jonathan has a point but it is that libertarian point that we should not provide social safety nets in the country. i am willing to talk about whether we need to provide cancer treatments to children from poverty stricken families. i would like to have that discussion. terry: most of them do a provide that. >> i don't know why, idiots like me i broke my finger hitting it with a hammer. i don't want welfare dollars to come to me that have a moral hazard. we see it in the banks. no down side no matter what i do, somebody else will take care

of me. terry: i would vote against that. but they are trying to force this public option on us. >> they should not be on it. they have had passed food stamp legislation. people in government are rich. the salaries make you salivate if you are middle class. most of them bring more money to the table. they should not be on government healthcare because it should be for the poor, not the upper middle class. terry: we have a government healthcare plan for the poor. >> medicaid but 50 million are not on it because some of them need to be forced on it like you are forced to get car insurance. terry: it is more like 14 million uninsured. >> the rest of them opt out. >> that is why you should force some and the real poor you pay. >> no force. >> you get car insurance to get

your driver's license. >> have you noticed that the more the government has done to try to provide healthcare, be involved with healthcare the more expensive healthcare across the board has gotten for everybody? the answer if you want to provide healthcare is not to get the government more involved but less involved and let the free market bring the quality up and price down. all of your public plans don't do that in the least. guest terry: we have new numbers that show the plan will probably cost more. >> the idea that we create more bureaucracy won't be expensive makes no sense but we have to realize that there is no free market in medicine and healthcare right now. the republican plan is all about redistributing wealth. the democrat plan will redistribute it to other companies. the lobbyists are writing the laws. terry: wayne, is the hypocrisy enough to derail national

healthcare? >> no, and the question is not about healthcare. we all debated that to death. the question here is about congress getting something that the rest of the country cannot get. they have a health plan and pension and things. they are elitists. this is a group who are voting for themselves and don't give a darn about their constituents. that is what is wrong about this. and i disagree with jonathan when you say this, you know it is a fact that everybody is being forced to do something. they are not being forced to do something. the congress is choosing this to do this for themselves, not for the people. that is what is wrong with it. if you talk about the other things where if is unfair, it is where it is forced on small business. terry: we have to go but wayne, i think you have a few terms in politics. is mcdonald's about to bolt america over higher taxes? and is the definition of

slumlord about to take on a new meaning? 5 5 5 5 injured, amer

among them. i will see you at 1:00 p.m. eastern in america's news headquarters. terry: mcdonald's packing up its european headquarters in london heading to switzerland because of higher taxes. could that happen here? >> we could. it is already happening. the u.s. has the highest corporate tax rate in the

developed world. i think we are 125th on the index of economic freedom and capital is very mobile right now. people can push a button and send millions anywhere. we want to attract productive profit-seeking businesses, you don't do that by raising taxes and regulation but that is the direction the administration documents take us. terry: i can see you packing up the hedge fund. >> come on, jonathan. where are you going to go? it is the place to be. people kill themselves to cross the ocean to get here. you won't move just because of the tax implications. >> it is already happening. entrepreneurs are leaving the u.k. >> this is something that the united states is accustomed to. you may see employees be shipped overseas that could happen if the obama administration continues to talk about taking key deductions that are applied to overseas income but you are

not going to see corporations moving headquarters. it is one thing to move a small headquarters from italy to switzerland or from spain to afghanistan for all i know but you won't move general headquarters out of the united states of america. terry: wayne, will we see the movement in this direction? >> i hate to tell you this, but i think you are wrong, tracy. we know companies that moved their headquarters to bermuda to escape taxes. they are trying to escape taxes. just look in california and see what is happening it california. already people have moved out of the state, businesses moved out of the state because california has raised taxes to one of the highest in the world and it will continue that way. business will run away if you tax them. it is a matter of -- it is like water. it goes to the lowest point. >> to tracy's point, in addition to higher corporate tax rates, which i don't really necessarily

believe because corporations write all the policy soss they have so many loopholes they don't pay what we think. terry: there are not as many loopholes as they used to have. >> but 15 months ago we destroyed the premise of the country when we started bailing out wall street and creating the moral hazard. >> mcdonald's went to switzerland. last time i checked they had a giant government held care plan and huge taxes. terry: but they don't have a lot of people. >> the point is that you don't need low taxes to have companies come. you need the lowest tags. as long as our taxes are lower than others they will come. >> it rule of law. >> we are talking about keeping a company in america. we can have 70% as long as everybody else is 80%. >> we have the same conversation when they passed sarbanes-oxley. all the companies will leave the united states because of the rules. it is all this media mayhem and

everybody stays put. it is more expensive to move your headquarters. i get that some people are leaving. >> you are wrong, tracy. i'm on the board of a new york stock exchange company and they are thinking about doing just that, leaving the united states because of the taxes and sarbanes-oxley which cost this company $4 million a year to comply with sarbanes-oxley. they don't have to do it. they go somewhere else. >> i get that. but i think that when they do like a cost analysis from the talent they are going to lose, from just the cost of moving everything over there they will find at the end of the day this is the place to be. terry: adding to this, is this perhaps 8% surcharge on companies who don't provide healthcare for employees? >> absolutely. in a world full of globalization we are competing just like ireland, singapore, like the cayman islands to attract

profit-seeking pools of capital. you don't do that by layering it with taxes and regulation. i agree that america is still a nice place to live but what about the neck microsoft or google? how can we ensure they will be here and not in saudi arabia or dubai? >> but you then have the question will the talent move to saudi arabia? terry: they might if the taxes are lower. >> the united kingdom is a badly run government. switzerland is a well run government with high taxes. is our government run badly? that will drive a company out. overall high taxes by itself is not a killer terry: we will leave it there. deadbeat alert. a push to make uncle sam the landlord for everyone who can't pay their mortgage. who gets stuck with the

who gets stuck with the >> axxaaaaa%%%%%%

i'm sorry. i can't hear you very well. announcer: does someone you know have trouble hearing on the phone? dad. dad, let me help you with that, okay? announcer: now, a free phone service shows captions of everything a caller says. i'd like to make an appointment to see the doctor. announcer: to learn more about captioned telephone, call 1-800-552-7724

or go to our website. i'll see you at 3:00! announcer: captioned telephone - enjoy the phone again! terry: the government considering a plan allowing homeowners falling behind on mortgage payments to be renters. wayne, will this help the housing market and economy or should we shut down the idea? >> it is not going to help the housing market one iota. we have public housing in many ways, section 8 housing. these are programs in the government where the government pays for housing. those have been fairly successful in certain cases. but this has nothing to do with it. it has to do with the overextension of credit. that will have to work itself out and that is the only thing that will save it.

terry: jonas, this is not going to help people that lost their jobs and can't make payments but when they get a job they can stay in their houses? >> it is like a big rent to own program. the biggest of all. the people deserve it but until things stabilize -- terry: what do you mean they deserve it. >> no one deserves it but the reality is the homes will be in foreclosure and drive everybody else's prices until inventory stabilizes we have to keep them off the market. keep hem in the home and make them make payments. >> why do we have to keep the houses off the market? i'm a renter. i have been saving money. >> i don't care about you. i >> that is the point. if you are getting your welfare to national iize fanny and freddie, this whole idea that the government is the largest landlord -- >> if they did this a year ago they would not are to bail out the banks.

>> this is the stupidest idea yet. forget what it will do to the securitized mortgage industry. talk about the moral issue here. we thought we had moral hazard before. not only do i not have to make the mortgage i get to keep the house. i don't have to move out. terry: why is it any different than the mortgage modification program? >> it is not. every subsidy whether the $10,000 state of california credit for new home buyers or $8,000 federal government or below market rates for buying a home or getting write-offs so you don't have to pay taxes it is an unfair tax on me the renter and saver. terry: but there are companies on wall street that are gotten below rate loans. >> that doesn't make it ok. we have to stop the corporate welfare, the real estate welfare. the land ownership welfare. >> we need to stay out of the

housing market. let it work itself through. >> that is it. a mortgage is between a lender and a borrower. what is the government having to do with that? >> who owns the mortgages? the government. the taxpayers are backing the mortgages. keep the person in the house anyway. >> jonas, reality exists. i don't care how much the president wants to sink into subsidies and welfare, reality exists and unless he wants to prop up my 401-k and baseball card collection you have to let the market work. >> redistributing wealth to renters and saveers to the ownership class again. terry: i think jonas will have better look with the baseball card collection but to say the government has to get out of home ownership it has been in the business of promoting home ownership 60 years now.

>> well, the problem is this. we are getting closer to a fascist government in the sense that the means of problems whether housing or industry or whatever it is is being regulated so overregulate bid the government and larger corporations that they are in cahoots with each other and the person who is got to be subject to the whims of the market he will be erased. the government will own everything and dictate everything and tell you how toe use your health, how to brush your teeth and take away your baseball card collection. >> this is not the country i grew up in. >> there are mortgage incentives the whole time you grew up. >> we start nationalize i izizi mortgages. >> the government is in and can't get out. terry: they are not thinking of getting out. coming up -- >>♪ breaking up is hard to do

>> in tough times a drop in the divorce rate is proving it. why that could help keep our economy from breaking apart.

terry: time for what do i need to know for next week. tracy? >> divorce rates are dropping because the economy is in the toilet. it is cheaper to stay together than get divorced. a couple's biggest asset is the

home that is under water. 401-k is under water. you are splitting nothing so it is more efficient to stay together. terry: maybe not fun. >> no. terry: jonathan? >> el nino is back and with all apollo sdwri to to bill o'reilly we will have tropical storms. j.j.s. is an zhang that holds the weather markets. cotton, coffee and sugar. if el nino turns into a major event it could have a significant bullish impact. not correlated to stocks. terry: jonas. >> you are looking for a rare environmental event to make the investment commodities may not be great. c.i.t. could prove to be the government's first official write-down loss in the tarp funds up to now the tarp only had paper losses and made money

off certain banks like goldman. but if the government is making money or not losing as much as originally thought they will pay the debts. the big risk and only risk is the government can't make the payments. >> only problem is any bank whether goldman or whoever, morgan stanley will report next week, any money they report, any profits from trading means they got staked with taxpayer lar larges largesse. terry: so you don't buy them. wayne, what do we need to know? >> you need to know what is happening with the healthcare plan. whatever comes out of the congress will be, it will cost us a lot and be a problem. terry: jonathan? >> to wayne's points a lot of the big players, i remember

ethanol stocks roared when president bush talked about it. so it could be a short-term benefit. terry: that will do it for the alisyn: good morning, everyone. it's july 20th, 2009. 23 years old, from idaho and scared. a young american soldier in the hands of the taliban. we're live in afghanistan with the latest on the fight to get him back. >> steve: meanwhile, when he is not sleeping during white house meetings, obama's top economic advisor surfs the web. don't worry, you can rest easy. larry summers is using google to forecast america's economy. we will give you the low down straight ahead. brian: we know what he is thinking when he logs on. four wheel drive and a-k 47. why a dealership is handing out assault rifles when you buy a new truck. i'm no