>> the ceo is a killer bet on people. second, they led the way to software on the web. third they got that new chatter thing. >> you like 'em? >> insider selling is up. rich stock 207 times earnings don't touch it. >> david: that's it for forbes on fox. not paying for it, we are not passing it! republicans coming fire after rejecting bail to extend jobless benefits that run out in 10 days. the price tag 12 1/2 billion dollars. they have no problem passing it, they just want to pay for it. they think they've found the perfect place to find the cash. hi i'm cheryl casone any, women come to cashin' in. wayne rogers, tracy persons,

charlie gasparino and joining this week from the economic policy institute our good friend christian dorsey. well to all of you. tracy, i'm going to start with you. do you think we should use unspent stimulus money to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits? >> that's the most logical thing i've heard to use this money for since we started this whole mess. 2346 billion dollars sitting there, waiting for -- 246 billion dollars sitting there waiting for some supposed shovel-ready projects. if you are gonna use money we have, do not continue to build on this deficiency. 246 billion waiting, take 12 .5 out and extend them. >> the money will come from the same place, stimulus, taxpayers in mother way. why not cut this deal? >> i would like the stimulus to be used to stimulate the economy. if you are going to use it in a keynesian way, spend it now, one of the problems with just spending for stimulus it never

gets done on time or do it whatever, a tax cut. i will say this, i don't think the average guy should be paying for the failures of obama mick -- obamanomics. unemployment is really bad now. 2% gdp tkpwhraoet is nothing. we've real unemployment of 17% in this -- in this country and it hurts working-class. >> nancy pelosi said she believes unemployment benefits stimulated the economy. do you agree? >> i think they do. if you have stimulus money why not use it. it all comes out of the same bucket any way. i don't know why they are making this distinction. unemployment one place and stimulus money somewhere else. go ahead and use it. otherwise don't use it at all. extending it, you might say, going from 26 state of state unemployment 99 weeks that's two years. if people can't get jobs in

two years there's something really wrong with the economy. maybe what we should be doing is using that money to stimulate a job and not just joblessness. >> something is really wrong with this economy. >> if you look at what is unspent so far, 246 billion dollars unspent so far. if the right thing to do by the government is to extend unemployment, again, why not use this barrel of money for that? >> because it is not un . it is just not paid out yet. the projects are -- are already approved and they are waiting to be consumated. what you are suggesting, what tracy is you going that you take money that adds jobs to the economy and take that money away, thereby adding to unemployment and using that money to pay for unemployment insurance that is the most insane thing i've heard. >> but we haven't added jobs! where have these shovel-ready projects done except put designs on -- put signs on the

tell me they are coming. >> recovery act has added three millions jobs to the economy. >> how can you know that? come on! [ talking over each other ] >> it is the absurdity of your argument that you put a number to it. it is insane. >> it is based on research. >> oh yeah, wonderful research. [ talking over each other ] >> christian? >> god. >> research accepted by people who are -- >> no, it is not, accept by the left wing fringe of this country which is trying to say -- >> charlie that is flat out wrong. >> know it's not. [ talking over each other ] >> let me bring in another number. let me take this to beyond than. unemployed have already collected 319 billion dollars in this country. why not reallocate stimulus

money -- if we are going to help already this much, just keep it going. >> why not help by letting somebody create a job so they don't have to be unemployed any more. i think charlie is right. somehow redisputing wealth creates more? we know stimulus before this stimulus hasn't done much to bring down unemployment. government spending is productive? i'm most offended by this notion that if you oppose more unemployment benefits, you're a big jerk, an ah you don't want more government redistribution of wealth. i want the economy is succeed and grow but it doesn't have to happen as government entitlements. >> if you believe christian's numbers you have to hold them accountable for the fact they told us if we spent 800 billion dollar we would have 8 1/2 unemployment around this time last year. >> we never said that. >> they said it, warren said it, the president said it.

they said 8 1/2% unemployment this time last year. >> what we were telling you was we were gonna have north of 12% unemployment without the recovery act. [ talking over each other ] >> that 8 1/2 thing i just made up? >> it is money, we are spending money allocated or not, we are not seeing anything out of it. no jobs are being created. whether unemployment benefits should be extended and whether that unemployment check stimulates the economy, i don't know. >> mr. wayne rogers, let me take this point to you. let's not forget companies do pay taxes to fund unemployment. if this is supposed to be about job creation or helping folkses to get a job, companies, the private sector needs to hire them. they are not doing it, we are at 9.6% right now. >> the idea is, if you spend this money to not create jobs,

but to create the need for jobs, that's what you want to do. any stimulus money should be not creating a job out of whole clot but to create the -- whole clothe but to create the need for a job, something that is going to make the positive impact on the economy as a whole. -- >> to your point sheryl the job producers the creators the employers have the money taken away from them. [ talking over each other ] >> it is not just taxes it is also the fact that some critics will argue and say if you keep somebody on unemployment they don't have motivation to look for a job. >> listen, i think this economy is so bad to take it out on the unemployed right now is the wrong way to go.

i think people need benefits. here's the issue with the stimulus this is at the heart of our unemployment problems. it is not that it didn't create jobs, of course it did. it did not create jobs in the efficient manner that was predicted. when you spend money like that it is the most inefficient which to -- way to create wealth. it has been proven. we had a great depression, it was a great depression because they tried stimulate the economy the same way. >> thanks to all of you, great discussion. >> see this folks, richard simmons jumping with joy when he stopped by fox news this week. he was so overcome with happiness, he even showed some love to john stossel. why couldn't he contain himself. he just checked out the new cost of freedom website. check out and vote in our new poll, should we have a national sales tax to reduce our deficit? it is all there at foxnews.com/ cost of freedom.

>> coming up, something wal-mart doing this week -- [ inaudible ] >> college students seeing a -- seeing a hike in tuition. some sticker shock that could leave all of us paying dearly. ♪

♪ yes! ♪ look, they fit! oh my gosh, are those the jeans from last year? how'd you do it? eating right...whole grain. [ female announcer ] people who eat more whole grain tend to have healthier body weights. multigrain cheerios has five whole grains and 110 lightly sweetened calories. more grains. less you! multigrain cheerios. [ male announcer ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people

who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landingas better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah.

new plan to save on health care not from the government, from wal-mart. hitting wal-mart pharmacies this week, low cost prescriptions. the largest retailer teaming up with humana to give medicare recipients a break. jonathan says this proves we should repeal the health care law now. >> this is what wal-mart does. they have a long history of creating wealth, creating value for customers, investors, employees and they've done eight cross so many different fields. groceries, cell phone plans, now hopefully, across health

care as well. estimates are this could save the average family $450 a year. pretty significant. especially at time which the government is taking higher taxes and making sacrifices. the problem is, it is difficult for the private second to -- second sector to be innovative in health care. >> wayne, what if i'm not near a wal-mart? you have 27 million people signed up for the benefit. what if i can get the cheap prescriptions? >> it is just unfortunate. this is the best thing about free market competition. we have a free market. the government which dominates this like jonathan says. yet, here's a private company coming in and giving us low cost health care. that should happen more and more. not just wal-mart but more and more companies. competition in the free market is going to create the best

product for the consumer at the cheapest price. >> hard to argue with wal-mart particularly when it comes to prescription drugs, two dollars, four dollars. they've changed the face of prescription drug coverage. >> if you live near a wal-mart and use the drugs that are part of their plan this is great for you and wonderful and i'm glad this option is available. let's not get it wrong. private insurance industry increases at 10% this year. medicare rates 6%. clearly government is more cost-effective this is a false argument. the wal-mart plan is part of the medicare part d program this is something where government and private industry are working together to bring low cost to consumers. >> this is a historical moment. i've never heard anyone say the government is more cost-effective in regard to anything. we know that this is gonna come back to bite us. all we are seeing two wayne's

point the capital list markets working -- capitalist markets working to -- people are gone into be happy, keep more in their pocket, more that stimulates the economy not coming down in the socialized manner and taking criminal and spaoeufling us that's what is happening. >> -- stifling us, because that's what is happening now. >> you can also do mail-in programs with wal-mart. we complain about the cost of health care this deals with it and it has nothing to do with the u.s. government. >> and they are not doing it because they care so much about everybody. they are doing it because they wanna make money. they are profit-seeking. christian, i suppose would say that is a bad thing when a company wants to make a profit. the fact that wal-mart is doing it even in the contest of a highly regulated, dominated sphere like health care to their credit. i hope they can offer this to more people as well.

>> jonathan makes a great point. >> as a business reporter, i would like to know how they are making money on this. that's the one unanswered question. i bet when you look at this the numbers don't add up. >> i know charlie doesn't go to wal-mart. >> i do, right before i go to san pedro, i go to wal-mart. what can i tell you. >> i gotcha. valid point christian. if you go to wal-mart, it makes sense for them, for the folks that can't afford these prescriptions especially seniors who have to have maintenance drugs. >> keep in mind this is a plan part of hundreds of others part of medicare part d. it doesn't offer every drug at that price point. it is not going to work for everyone. it is part of a system where this is going to make sense for a lot of seniors and hooray i'm glad it is there for them.

hooray for wal-mart for providing it. understand it would not be possible were it not for the medicare program that enables it. >> wait, think about how many more wal-marts you have out there if we didn't have medicare if you had the free market in health care that we haven't had since medicare and medicaid started coming in. you would have the innovation we are talking about that can't happen as long as medicare and medicaid exist. >> thank you both for making my point. >> that's what we are here for, for you wayne. >> coming up, giving breaks to those who break the law? california offering college tuition discounts to illegal immigrants. >> taxpayers are ponying up the cash. president obama holding a

news conference, lisbon, portugal so site. nato summit. >> the president: i think my fellow leaders for the of common purpose. more more than 60 years nato has proven itself as the most successful alliance in history. defended the independence and freedom of its member. it has nurtured young democracies and welcomed them into europe. that is whole and free. it has acted to end ethnic cleansing, beyond our borders. today we stand united in afghanistan. see terrorists who threaten us all have no safe haven so the afghan people can forge a more hopeful future. at no time during these past six decades, was our success guaranteed. indeed there have been many times when skeptics have predicted the end of this alliance. each time, nato has risen to the occasion and adapted to

meet the challenges of that time. now, as we face a new century with different challenges, from the last, we have come together here in lisbon, to take action in four areas that are critical to the future of the alliance. first, we aligned our approach on the way forward in afghanistan. particularly, on a transition to full afghan lead that will begin in early 2011. and will conclude in 2014. it is important for the american people to remember that afghanistan is not just an american battle. we are joined by a nato-led coalition made up of 48 nations with over 40,000 troops from allied and partner countries. we honor the service and sacrifice of every single one. with the additional resources that we've put in place, we are now achieving our objective of breaking the taliban's momentum and doing the hard work of training

afghan security forces in assisting the afghan people. i want to thank our allies who committed additional trainers and mentors to support the vital mission of ing afghan forces. with these commitments i'm confident -- i'm confident that we can meet our objective. here in lisbon we agreed early 2011 will mark the beginning of a transition to afghan responsibility. weigh adopted the goal of afghan forces taking -- taking lead for security across the country by the end of 2014 this is a goal that president karzai has put forward. i've made it clear that even as americans transition and troop reductions will begin in july, we will forge a long term partnership with the afghan people. today, nato has done the same. this leaves no doubt as afghans stand up and take the lead, they will not be standing alone. as we look ahead to a new phase in afghanistan we also

reached agreement in a second area. new concept for nato that recognizes the capabilities and partners that the alliance needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century i want to give special thanks to secretary general rasmussen for his outstanding leadership in forming a vision that preserves the enduring strengths of the alliance while adapting it to meet the missions of the future. as i said yesterday, we have reaffirmed the central premise of nato. our article 5 commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all. to ensure this commitment has meaning we agreed to take action in a third area to modernize our conventional forces and develop the full range of military capabilities that we need to defend our nations. we'll invest in technology so allied forces can deploy and operate together more effectively. we'll deploy new defenses against threats such as cyber

attacks. we will reform alliance command structures to make them more flexible and more efficient. most important, we agreed to develop a missile defense capability for nato territory. which is necessary to defend against the growing threat from ballistic missiles. the new approach to european missile defense that i announced last year, the phase adaptive approach will be the united states contribution to the effort and a foundation for greater collaboration. after years of talk about how to meet this objective, we now have a clear plan to protect all of our allies in europe, as well as the united states. when it comes to nuclear weapons, our strategic concept reflects today's realities as well as our future aspirations. alliance will work to create the conditions so we can reduce nuclear weapons and a wopld without them. at the same time we've made it clear so long as these weapons

exist, nato will remain a nuclear alliance and the united states will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal to -- deter adversaries and guarantee the defense of all our allies. finally, we agree to keep forging the partnership beyond nato that help make our lives a pillar of -- our alliance a pillar of global security. continue to enhance nato's cooperation with the eu which i will talk about later this afternoon with eu leaders. after a two year break we are resuming cooperation between nato and russia. i was pleased that my friend and partner president medvedev joined us today at the nato russia council summit. together, we've worked hard to reset the relations teen the united states and russia. which has lead to concrete benefits for both our nations. now, we are also resetting the

nato-russia relationship. we see russia as a partner not an adversary. we agree to deepen our cooperation in several critical areas. on afghanistan, counter narcotics, and a range of 21st century security challenges. perhaps, most significantly we agreed to cooperation on missile defense which turns a source of past tension into a source of potential cooperation against a shared threat. overall, this has been an extremely productive two days. we came to lisbon with a clear task. that was to revitalize our alliance to meet the challenges of our time that's what we've done here. of course, it is work that cannot end here. i'm pleased to announce that the united states will host the next nato summit in 2012. the sum nate will allow us to build on the commitments that we made here today. as we transition to full -- full afghan lead, build new capabilities, expand

partnerships and ensure the most successful alliance in history will continue to advance our security and our prosperity well into the future. i said to prime minister socrates that considering he has thrown such a successful summit here in lisbon, i've been taking notes. you set a very high bar of outstanding hospitality. so i appreciate everything that the people of portugal have done. we will try to reciprocate that hospitality when we host in 2012. with that, let me take some questions. i'm gonna start with margaret warner of pbs. margaret why don't you get a microphone. >> thank you mr. president. what message do you hope this summit sends to send for jon kyl and other republicans in the senate who are resisting voting on and

ratifying star in the lame duck session? >> the president: a couple of messages that i want to send to the american people. number one, i think that americans should be proud that an alliance that began 60 years ago, through the extraordinary sacrifices in part of american young men and women, sustained throughout a cold war, has resulted in a europe that's more unified than it has ever been before. that is an extraordinarily strong ally of the united states. and that continues to be a cornerstone of prosperity not just for the united states and europe, but for the world. this is a direct result you of american efforts and american

sacrifice. i think the world appreciates it. the second message i want to send is that, after a period in which relations teen the united states and europe were severely strained, that strain no longer exists. there are occasions where there may be disagreements on certain tactical issues. but in terms of a broad vision of how we achieve transatlantic security that alliance has never been stronger. that is something americans should feel good about. number three, i think the americans should know that american leadership remains absolutely critical to achieving some of these important security objectives. i think our european partners would be the first to acknowledge that. what we ratified here today, is the direct result of work

that we've done over the last two years to get to this point. just to take an example of afghanistan. i think that if you said even a year ago or even maybe six months ago, that we would have a unified approach on the part of our allies, to move forward in afghanistan, with a sustained commitment, where we actually increased the resources available and closed the training gap in order to be successful. i think a lot of s would have said that's not gonna happen. it has happened in part because, we have rebuilt those strong bonds of trust between the united states and our allies. the fourth thing and this finally goes to your specific question, unprompted, i have receiveed overwhelming support from our allies here that the

new treaty is a critical component to u.s. and european security and they have urged both privately and publicly that this gets done. i think you've seen the comments of a wide range of european partners on this issue. including those who live right next to russia. who used to live behind the iron curtain. who have the most cause for concern, with respect to russian intentions. and who have uniformly said that they will feel safer and more secure if this treaty gets ratified. in part, because right now we have no verification mechanism on the ground with respect to