c.e.o. is selling their stock, why are you buying it? brenda: stick with the jeans. ok, the very stylish neil cavuto team is up next. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] >> just take it easy, will you? we just want to talk to you. that's all. >> anything, tony. i tell you anything you want to know. neil: you know, i remember remembering that scene when i heard about this other real-life scene at the white house. the leader of the c.b.o. called in by the big o for a little chat. barack obama just wanted to talk to doug, that's all, just talk, just to chat, in the oval office, in the white house, pronto. was i the only guy in the country saying, uh-oh? the only guy wondering whether this meeting had anything to do

with his nonpartisan budget office pass on the president's healthcare package? that it wouldn't save money, that it would actually cost more money? not welcome news for tony -- i mean, barack -- i mean the president of the united states. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto, and who better this week, this particular week to ponder that little chat than johnny, johnny sack? remember him from "the sopranos"? the real-life vincent here now. oh, relax. for god's sake, it's summer, relax. we're just having fun here. and here to have fun with us, gary, lee, rob. you notice all our regular panel has just disappeared this week. curious. anyway, vincent, johnny sack, keep your friends close, your enemies closer, huh? >> always. that's the way to do it. the c.b.o. goes in there for five minutes or an hour and probably comes out and says, ok! neil: the plan is going to save trillions? >> end of story. neil: no matter what he does

now, it doesn't look good. if he comes back and revises his numbers, and then all the sudden it appears that his plan does save money, people are going to hearken back to that chat now. >> it's toast. he's tainted. neil: you know a little bit about these things, or you play a role you know a little bit. >> thank you, played a role. thank you. i appreciate that. neil: one thing i love about vincent is the best stare in tv. all right, so you're in the oval office. how do you think that went down? you don't think the president had to say anything? >> no. i mean, why would you have to say anything? you're the president of the united states. you just stand there. it's going to go that way, right? thank you. i want to be a hero tonight when i get on the air. well, yeah, ok -- this is intimidation, isn't it? i mean, this is how it works on the street. you just have to look at a guy. how's your family? i hope they're well, your family. do you like hospital food? neil: so lee, i don't know if those words were exactly crossed, but it was a weird

meeting, was it not? >> well, ok, it might have been original. i don't think we've seen much of this, the c.b.o. is imperial. they're untouchable. they are impartial. voip sort of like vincent. >> right, but i actually argue if he were to pull a tony soprano, he would have taken him to the wood shed. he pulled more of a johnny sack, let's have a chat, calm, cool, collected, the voice of moderation, and like the deal when carmine and tony couldn't come to an agreement. you kind of brought them together, focus on the profits. >> she's good. >> and not on the politics, you know? not on the respect. it was about let's get the deal done. so this is an incredibly complicated proposal. and he just wanted to make sure he understood it. neil: all right, well, all right. gary, i'm looking at this, right, gary? i'm looking at this, and i'm thinking, this is a little weird on a variety of levels. for one thing, the president has his own budget director. congress has its own budget director. if you're quibbling with the guy's numbers, and many of the

white house were, then couldn't you have your budget director, your johnny sack, if you will, talk to their guy and settle it out? why does tony, a.k.a. the president, have to get involved? >> well, look, barack obama is famous for this. he is an arm twister. he's done it before with the auto companies and with others. and this, for me, is the subtle arm twist. my big thought process here is one-fold. u a president that came in and said who he was and he was and what he wasn't. he's not going to be what used to be. he's going to be upfront, be the good guy. but yet he brings this guy in -- i think the first thing he did, by the way, this is the head of the i.r.s., i just want to you meet him, and got him in there, just so he's not -- >> that is not what happened. we know that's not -- >> no, i know. look, for me, it's just bad form. it's bad appearances. it should have been done another way. neil: i got you. bob stein, what do you think of that? >> i agree it's about appearances.

i mean, what if he did have a question that he wanted to get an answer from somebody outside his inner sir zphell what if he wanted some clarity on that? i guess the way did he it does make it feel like a tony soprano arm twisting, but the truth will be in what happens from here. you know, are changes going to be made because of this secret meeting or actually not secret meeting, but forced meeting? neil: knees meetings have no sinister intent, let's say there was no, you know, no "suspect ran op "moment, and the president genuinely wanted to find out, gee, i thought i was going to save a lot of money of this, and you come to a totally different conclusion. if leah and i were working on the same story and she came up with a different seft numbers, she and i are friends enough to say, boy, i just had a whole different result than you did, can you help me with me or i can help with you yours? there are no sinister

intentions here. you're saying the appearance alone -- >> slaught. iments the same thing as the prosecutors going into a closed chamber with the judge without the defense attorney. it's the same thing. you're going to the c.b.o. isn't that a judge? is he not supposed to be quarble? neil: well, flip it around then. if you're invited to the white house, it's a big honor. you know, leigh have been there, and it's a beg honor. >> you went when jimmy carter was president? neil: actual, eisenhower. >> gave you coke and a bag of peanuts. neil: actually just food, and i stayed because it was free. but my point is that rarely do you turn down a white house invite, right? so should he have? >> he should v. i mean, again, we go back -- i said the other day about trance parents simple i mean, does it look good he tells -- he summons him, first of owl. who does not go to the white house this when they're summoned? practically no. john gotti called the guy in, he didn't come in, this guy wound up gone.

they don't do that in government. yeah, sure. neil: it's the appearance thing for you? >> it's the appearance there's no trance parents sifment >> it's horrible. neil: this drake's cake deal i just signed is not looking good. let me get your thought on what happens from here, because we know he's going to be before congress again, being called occupy pricing for any initiative. that's what the c.b.o. director does. they crunch the numbers, and they have to see if they fly. sometimes congress likes what they see, sometimes they do not. al i can rive lynn, the first c.b.o. was telling me the other day that she's been questioned by numerous presidents on how she came to her math, and democrats i can and republican leaders in congress. so why should we be surprised? >> well, look, here's the big problem i see for obama going forward with this situation. if this man goes in front of congress and changes his story and changes his numbers credibility is all shooting, so basic the meeting kind of hurts obama. but look, i don't think there's anything nefarious here. i think he's really trying to

sell a big package, trying to get people in line. i just think there's a little bit of inexperience as president, and i think he's got to realize that every word he says, every step he takes, every meeting he has is going to be watched and looked over by the media, and thus we're sitting here talking about, he's got to be a lot more careful about it going forward. neil: all right. just for people, there are serious types at home, relax, we're just having fun, but vincent is taking names if you're laughing at us right now. vincent, could you give them the stare? i so love this man. all right, well, did you see this? millions of dollars in stimulus spending going to pork. i'm serious. it's to buy ham and cheese, actually sandwiches. why someone at "forbes" says that's great news. but first, forget about the cost of national healthcare, wait until you hear about the likely rationing of healthcare. welcome to the now network. population: 49 million.

right now 1.2 million people are on sprint mobile broadband. 31 are streaming a sales conference from the road. eight are wearing bathrobes. two... less. - 154 people are tracking shipments on a train. - ( train whistles ) 33 are im'ing on a ferry. and 1300 are secretly checking email... - on a vacation. - hmm? ( groans ) that's happening now. america's most dependable 3g network. bringing you the first and only wireless 4g network. sprint. the now network. deaf, hard of hearing and people with speech disabilities access www.sprintrelay.com.

>> hi, everyone. from america's news headquarters, i'm jamie colby. there are new threats out of iran this morning. roiters is reporting iran's revolutionary guard is saying it will strike israel's nuclear sites if the jewish nation attacks, warning their missile capabilities put israel within reach. iranian leaders have said in the past iran would respond to any attack from israel by targeting israel and u.s. interests. and a new report out says that the president, president bush,

that is, had considered a nearly unprecedented use of military power. the former president was considering its reported to send troops to new york to arrest the lackawanna six terror suspects back in 2002, and these reports say that vice president cheney was behind the move. president bush ultimately decide against it. we'll have more headlines for you in about 30 minutes. i'm jamie colby. keep it here on fox, the most powerful name in news. neil: i'm really liking this show. anyway, back to the show. everyone is worried how much money a government-run health plan is going to eventually cost, but someone here says it's going to cost us something much more precious, our lives. gary, you fear there's going to be a lot of rationing, and that's going to get pretty bad. >> well, look, i think it's all about this government taking away your decision-making power and your choice, and it's going to be the doctor and the patient. you really don't need my opinion on it. you look at the press conference and obama was asked,

what are you going to give up, and he said, and i quote him, "they're going to have to give up things that don't make them healthier." that's telling you there's going to be some bureaucrats in washington sitting with computers and statistics saying, ok, you're 84 years old, you don't need that hip replacement, so there goes the decision so. they're going to lower costs. how? less procedures, less choice, see you, washington, taking over more control of your life. neil: i can just peculiarity my case, we're just going to kill you, neil, while you're here. but what do you make of that? it does make mathematical sense, leigh, that many more people coming into the system, we're not just creating more doctors, we're not creating more machines. somewhere rationing or at least waiting is going to be in order, right? >> sure. but we already ration healthcare. we ration it based on cost. you get what you or your employer will pay for, ration based on waiting scomplines shortages, insurance companies that put up obstacles, so there's a lot of rationing going o. right now we're rationing our salaries towards

healthcare. i mean, our wages are not going up, and the cost of healthcare are. so there's already a lot of appropriating and rationing going on all right. neil: but rob, isn't this rationing on steroids, though? wouldn't this be taking that to a new level? >> no, i don't think so. i haven't seen that. i mean, i hear it, but when you have a scarce resource and you need to distribute it to a larger population, the word "rationing" comes up, but it's really an allocation situation. and maybe getting rid of some inefficient healthcare needs, and you're rate, maybe it's not the government's choice and it should be between up and your doctor, but i highly doubt it's going to get to the point where you're in the gas line and your license plate ends in a six so you can get gas on wednesday, your name ends in a vowel so you can get the heart transplant on thursday. and that's -- neil: wait a minute. your name neands vowel, you can get the heart transplant? good, i just want to double check. >> on thursday. neil: what i'm worried about here is that, you're young and, you know, you're reasonably healthy, it's one thing. you get a little bit older, i can't see doctors not weighing,

does the 70, 80, 85-year-old need this? >> yeah. well, the last film that he had guard g. robinson made before he died three weeks later was qul soylent green" starring charlton heston. you get to a certain age, and you're i can loorks, oh, you walk slow, oh, forget t. they put him on the cot, they show him a beautiful, beautiful panoramic thing behalf his life probably was or should have been, and then they give him an injection, and boom, they put him in a bed and they get rid of him. done. because you know what's going to happen? neil: and "so ilent green" was people. i don't want to give it away. >> but we're going to get to the point if you're 40, 50, we will do these tests. when you start to hit 60, 65, 70, we're not going to do three tests, we're going to do one, because it doesn't make sense to keep you around if it's going to cost you a fortune. don't doctors today, in the private healthcare system, order an extraordinary amount

of tests? why? they're afraid of being sued for malpractice. the government's not going to be afraid to be sued for malpractice. >> but we're making other decisions as well under the currently is. right now, if you look at the number of people that are uninsured, which we've all heard that number time and time again, something like 20,000 people die each year or the last year that they kept track because they don't have insurance. right now we're basically saying, ok, those people, we're going to prioritize everybody else under the current system. you know, you're picking and choosing no matter what in a way. neil: i don't get what you're saying, that we would give justification for people dying either way? >> no, she's saying we're already -- it's already happening. there's already this allocation system in place. maybe you don't like, it it's those that don't have healthcare. neil: but i know this -- right now -- no, no, no. i do know if you're an older person and you are in dire need of medical attention and maybe some new medical therapies, you will get it. now, under a national healthcare system, we're divvying that up against a

wider population, getting that healthcare, you can't help but not get it or at least wait for it, because we're the greatest expenses -- where the greatest experiences are are near one's life, and the government's going to cruveraget numbers and realize, well, you know, this isn't worth t. >> that i think does happen now, though. i don't think it's just -- neil: no, i'm not saying it's not happening at all. i'm saying it's going to happen in hyper drive with this, because it will have. to >> well, maybe it actually becomes more efficient. maybe once we start figuring out the things that aren't really being productive and we cut them out, at the end of the day -- neil:, no i'll tell you what is not be productive, anyone old. that he wants a start. they'll not be productive. but that could be just me. that could be just me. but i like the comment earlier about the end nag vowel thing, so i might be safe at least when it comes to the heart stuff. when we come back -- how is chrysler using its bailout cash by matching the government's cash for clunker plan? somebody here wants to dump the plan on the scrapheap.

neil: well, talk about a double down. chrysler's out of money, so they're matching the government's $4,500 cash for clunkers plan. you hear about this? these guys are doing it buck for buck. so you're a taxpayer paying $9,000 for someone to trade in their old car. essentially that's what it comes down. to meantime, ford dent take any money from uncle sam, so it doesn't have the ability or cash for this offer. for ford, that sounds like a raw deal. >> terrible. put it down to buy my car. $9,000.

that's sad. from chrysler, who, by the way, should only be making jeeps, but that's another show. neil: but try to get more fuel-efficient vehicles on the street, right? so everyone can take advantage of this. ford, too. but chrysler can rev up the ante here essentially, leigh, by giving an additional $4,500 that ford might not v. >> but ford was always the best positioned. that's why it didn't take the bailout money. so they could do it, but they're just choosing not. to i think it's a great deal. i don't want to go against vincent. now i'm afraid. >> boo! >> i'll back you. i think i can stare him down, too. neil: he's on the remote, and he's going stare him down. oh! >> what room are you in? >> i'm in chicago. neil: gary, what i'm wondering about here, ford might have the money and all, but i'm wondering if chrysler is going to have a lot going in its favor if you're going mano a mano on these incentive plans, because the incentive plans in this case are coming from us,

the taxpayer. it's the government's interest to be rooting for chrysler on this one, right? >> well, chrysler gets the benefit here. you're able to give out more money, the more cars you're going sell. look, my biggest issue here, we continue to go towards a society where money's taken out of one hand, given to another, and then handed to somebody else based on a decision they make in buying a car, and it's all well and good to spur on car sales, but i just think there's no fairness, there's no level playing field, and it's all because government is taking over in every part of our life at this juncture. neil: rob, i'm going interrupt your chain of threat before you were threatened by vincent, but the bottom line you think is fair is fair, the strongest survives, even with the government help, and chrysler is going to be in a fight, and it has no more advantages than ford. >> yes, exactly. by the way, it's incentivizing a specific type of car purchase, supposedly better for everybody. >> supposedly.

>> yeah. neil: ok. well, all right, i think you changed your tune after you heard vincent, didn't you? by the way, i do want to thank my buddy vincent for joining us today. i'm going to let the others know they can stop hiding now and come back next week. in the meantime, these brave guys and gals are sticking around. they just bought stocks with their own dough, say you should buy them, too. the names are next.

neil: time for the stock process here to put their money where their mouths are and tell you will the names they're buying with their own green, putting real money into this. gary, what do you got? >> i just recently bought china, and the symbol is f.x.i., the china 25 index. neil: oh, i thought you bought the whole crifment >> look, bottom line is, china, the strongest country, with strong economic growth if the market goes higher, it will lead. if the market pulls back, it will pull back less. great relative strength right now. >> we actually bought it a few moss ago swsm it's one of my top picks for all those reasons. i think china is going to lead us out, and as gary said, if things get worse, it will survive. neil: rob, what are you doing in the meantime? >> i like the biotech. i like i.b.b. i know we are hearing a lot of things about what's going on in the healthcare sector, but quite frankly, they're adding jobs. they're creating profits. it trades at a lower pepe than

it did even when the stock price was lower than the i.b.b. i think this is one that's going to lead the economy and the markets higher. neil: all right. what do you make that have? >> i like the healthcare angle, but i think biotech is the riskiest area of healthcare. although there are actually very big, very stable companies. soiled just be wary. neil: isn't the argument that even if the price of their drugs come down, they'll be selling a heck after lot more of them to a lot more people? doesn't that wash out? >> that's the theory, yeah. but the problem, is especially at the very small level, loft companies are very tiny and having trouble getting funding with the credit crunch. neil: what you are you doing? >> i'm rejiggering my whole retirement account, relooking at everything. and the f.m.i. large cup index fund is something i plan on agged. this is a blue chip, low-cost index fund. when i'm thinking about retirgetse i've got a ways to go. i won't tell you how long. neil: you've got like 70 years. what are you worried about? >> a little less than that. but i want something that's going to be stable, a building blofpblgt i'm not looking for get rich quick. i'm looking for long term,

stocks you can republican tire o. these are blue chips, you know, these are good for the long run. neil: because the long run hasn't exactly been great of late. >> no, that's true, but this is just one part, a building block. neil: rob? >> i think you can get market exposure. if the economy recovers, it will go up. and if we have a double dip recession, like i think we might have, it will go back down. and i think you'll do a lot of pedaling in place. it's ok to have as a piece of your portfolio, but i think you do better actually in smaller caps. neil: before we go, on this economic pickup that you're seeing in some of the second quarter earnings, are you buying we're through the worst of this or what? >> i think everything's really starting to stabilize, and more importantly, the market is telling you, the markets, the greatest forecaster of the economy, we just broke above an eight-month trading range here. that is very good news for the next few months. neil: all right. rob, a message from vin serningt you will sleep with the fishes. i have no idea what that means. i do know that david asman is up now.