its auto insurance customers for over 70 years.e to more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night. if. for such a small if i live to a hundred. if social security isn't enough. if my heart gets broken. if she says yes. we believe if should never hold you back. if should be managed with a plan

that builds on what you already have. together we can create a personal safety net, a launching pad, for all those brilliant ifs in the middle of life. you can call on our expertise and get guarantees for the if in life. after all, we're metlife. issue one, tax blues. >> congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. the tax reductions you passed are set to expire. unless you act, americans face a tax increase. what congress has given, the congress should not take away for the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent. >> well, sir, we are about a month away from what analysts say will be one of the largest tax hikes in u.s. history.

the two major tax cutting bills presented by president george w. bush and passed by a republican congress in 2001 and 2003 are both set to sunset or expire on december 31. if congress does not vote to reinstate the bush tax cuts, they will be cut. all taxpayers have something at stake. here is the extent of the logs. item, the marriage penalty returns, expanded tax credits like the child tax credit vanishes and what comes back is the estate tax or the death tax. item, high income households will no longer receive the full value of their deductions. that loss will cost them up to $21 billion. item, capital gains tax rates, dividend tax rates and income tax rates increase at every

income level. the existing 10% [will go -- bracket will go away. lowest will be 15%. the existing 15% will be replaced by the 28% bracket. the 28% bracket will be replaced by the new 31% bracket. the exist 3-g 3% bracket will be replaced by the new 36% bracket and the exist 3-g 5% bracket will be replaced by the new 39.6% bracket. question. should george w. bush's tax cuts from almost a decade ago be left where they are, in plates, pat buchanan. >> if they are not, the economy will go into cardiac arrest. here is what is going to happen, obama and democrats realize the republicans won the battle for extension of all the tax cuts for two more years until 2013. where democrats are going to try to come back issa, okay, we go along with that but after 2013 only the middle cut tax

cuts for under a million dollars. the issue here is it's a game of chicken. which of these two parties is prepared to let these taxes go vaulting upward january 1 and take us to the edge of the cliff and which one will blink first. i think, this is a guess, i think the republicans are going to win this battle and mort's tax rates remain where they were. >> do you want to do this during the lame duck session. >> you have to. >> republicans are not in there. the republicans don't have possession of the house. >> they do january 1. >> the republicans are not in possession of the house. >> they take over in january. you wait until january -- >> the congress is democratic controlled and it will go for obama's program, the republicans. >> you mean before january. >> of course. this is when it will be decided. >> can't dana prevent that. >> he doesn't have the horses in the house. >> he has sympathetic democrats that don't like the obama plan.

>> they are blue dogs and they are dead. >> they are not dead they are alive in the lame duck session. there are the votes to give the president what he wants which is permanent extension of the tax cuts for the middle class and to -- unless the democrats cop out. >> sunset the tax cuts for the high end. the problem is that obama, the democrats, do not have 60 votes in the senate. they have some democrats in the senate who are not going to go with that. so, i think the best that they could hope for is to extend temporarily, kick the can down the road for a year or give it to the middle class which everybody agrees should be done and by fur indicate the decision and kick the can down the road one year for the upper income. that would be the rational economic decision. but we are into republican theology here and tax cuts is

the mantra. so, they will fight to the death. >> it's not theology. when push signed both waves of tax cuts in 2001 and 2005 the result was 53 consecutive months of job creation and economic growth. they were proven to have worked. let's be clear. a lot of americans are confused in the conversation that they will be getting a tax cut if the congress and the president act. that is not true. they were originally tax cuts. what we are talking about is keeping the tax rates status quo which you have to do because the alternative is the obama tax increases, if they do not act. in this recession you have to give americans and small businesses who most of whom fall in that top rate, they created 70% of all the new jobs in the country. you have to let them retain as much of their money as possible if you want the recovery to get going and get job creation going. >> and you want to go to work. >> they should have done it

before the election but the democrats got themselves locked in this box where they have to do something before the end of the year. >> do most economists agree that there should not be any taxation during a period of recession. >> it all depends who is being taxed. depends. the problem with what was said and your presentation if i may say so, the vast bulk of these benefits go to the top 2% of the economy of the people who earn money. these are the people in my judgment that have to make a contribution to the deficit problems. you are talking about $700 billion over the next dictate that will be lost if this tax bill and defense is allowed to be rejuvenated. somebody has to pay more taxes. let me just finish, okay. if you don't do that, you will never get the middle class to pay additional taxes. we have to do something on the tax side. and if you do anything with this bill, okay.

you have to find some way to sunset some of the ridiculous tax benefits that go to everybody. we have to do something to deal with the fiscal problem. this is not a short-term problem. it's huge long term problem. if we give this up we won't have a chance to -- >> there is a compromise you could raise the definition of the 2% up to a million dollars and just tax people who are really super millionaires. and i want to counter what monica said, the eight years of the bush presidency was the weakest job growth in some time. you can't say that his tax cuts got the economy going. if that is true, why did we have the recession if all the tax cuts were so miraculous. >> the 53 consecutive months after the tax cuts were put in place you had this incredible engine of growth, not the last period of the presidency. >> clinton had eight years of

economic growth, 20 million jobs. >> let's go, let's go. >> i want to address what mort said. there is a misconception when you talk about the top earners, we are talking about bill gates and warren buffett. most americans say when you look at job creation, small businesses that file under the individual forms and fall in that category, that's what most americans are concerned b. when you talk about levying higher taxes on the rich, that is a form of class warfare. most people aspire to be the rich. they don't like letting those kind of tax on the job creators. nobody got a job from a poor man. >> there is the question. should congress move to keep the tax bush cuts in place in full or in part by taxing the rich, pat buchanan? >> if they keep them in place in full they are not raising taxes on the rich. that is what is going to happen. i think it could be continued, all the tax cuts for two years, that would kick the issue into

the election of 2012 which is where it ought to be then you can come after the rich folks. >> i'm not after the rich folks. i'm with the tea party people that want to lower the deficit. how can you say that's your priority then spend $700 billion on the top 2% that are doing fine. makes no sense. >> this question gets to the size and scope of government. this federal government and government at every level doesn't have a revenue problem. they have a spending problem. the original impetus to the tea appears, tea stands for tax enough already. you try to increase taxes on the middle class or small businesses and there will be political hell to pay. >> i'm not against the rich people. i want to make that clear. nevertheless, i am strongly in favor of fiscal sanity at the. sooner or later it will explode on us. this is one step that should never be allowed to expire. it's one opportunity allowed to do that. unless you have the people who

are doing better, paying a higher portion as eleanor said, it was bill clinton that introduced the tax increases, everybody said it would ruin the economy. it changed the fiscal side. so, i don't agree that it will affect the poor rich people. >> what about the provision of 250,000. >> if that's what it takes to issue 2, will india join the club? >> indeed the just and sustainable international order that america seeks includes a united nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. that is why i can say today in the years ahead i look forward to a reformed united nations security council including india as a permanent member.

>> china, russia, france, the united kingdom, you the united states and now maybe india. quote unquote permanent members of the united nations permanent security council. the u.n. most prestigious powerful body. each of the five permanent members, perhaps soon to be 6 has very to power -- veto power that allows them to block a member by the council. it means also that the u.s. wants india as an ally. it can be construed as a check on the economic activity of china. president obama's support for india might sour relations with pakistan with whom india fought three separate wars over the past 63 years and with whom we have engaged as a u.s. ally in

fighting terrorism in southwest asia. will president obama's initiative to getting india a seat on the permanent security council add up to a plus or minus for the united states, monica crowley. >> this is a huge plus, not because india will get a permanent seat any time soon. japan is still first in line. bill clinton encouraged a seat for japan and president bush made it official u.s. policy and japan is waiting. but here is why it was symbolically important. obama's trip was the first long- term strategic important thing that he has done. he has taken a look at the entire region and what he is doing is shoring up india to serve as a counter weight against the increasing and economic military power of china. he is putting the pakistanis on notice because pakistan is playing a dangerous game between us and the taliban in afghanistan. he is playing a sophisticated long-term strategic game and it

will accrue to our benefit. india is the biggest democracy in the world, natural ally and i say well done president obama. >> really? >> yes. >> you want to put that in writing. >> you have it on tape, john. >> notarize. >> it's on tape. >> i agree with that. i think india is a critical country for us. there are a few other people who are not happy about it, the pakistani and chinese amongst others but absolutely we have to find someone to recognize them and they are a democracy and by and large a very good ally of the united states on many levels. >> the trip and recommendation for the u.n. is important symbolically because china would veto it. it upset also the pakistanis but your relationship with pakistan is exceeded only by their due applies city to us this is a balancing act. >> we give pakistan $8 billion a year. hillary goes over there with

another half a billion. >> they are >> pakistan has 120 nuclear weapons. the last thing we want is to have an overthrow of that government which is very unstable. >> let me offer dissent. the brazilians want in, japanese, indians. i don't think anything get in. if they get in, you have a total security paralysis. as getting in bed with the indians against the chinese, we are not in the business of containing china. these countries have their problems with the chinese which are not our problems, the south china sea, east china sea or china's occupation of parts of india, frankly you antagonize the packs. they are already paranoid and antiamerican. >> the theory is that you can exert influence on india and

try to get india an pakistan to work together but -- >> let's go. the group gives obama and a. i think that's uniform. >> yes. >> no. >> no, i don't go along. i think it was a good trip. >> you gave an a. >> yes, i did. >> b. >> on the trip. >> i'm not talking about the trip, india. >> i'm behind the idea of multilateralism. >> diplomacy, foreign policy. >> no, look, if you have to go in and defend your national interests, you go unilaterally, multilaterally. >> don't dip your toes in foreign waters. >> foreign wars. >> issue 3, hiroshima. >> we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. as the only nuclear power to

have used a nuclear weapon, the united states has a moral responsibility to act. we cannot succeed in this endeavor alone. we can lead it. we can start it. so, today, i state clearly and with conviction, america's commitment which to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. >> in april 2009, barack obama delivered these words in pr nuclear power in an address wildly record to have helped him win the 2009 nobel peace prize. this weekend he was in japan at the annual conference of asian pacifi

bombings in hiroshima and nagasaki. president truman authorized the u.s. to bomb the cities in the last days of world war ii. august 6, 1945, the u.s. dropped a nuclear bomb on hiroshima killing an estimated 1,040,000 people. the second atomic bomb detonated at e e e e e e e e e of 80,000. japan surrendered august the 14th. in september, nobel peace larry yet wrote a letter to president obama asking him to join them as nobel prize recipient himself and give the opening

address at the hiroshima summit this weekend. mr. obama responded through letter written by a u.s. official who expressed thanks and praised the meetings efforts to abolish nuclear weapons but declined the invitation, offered no reason for rejecting. so, the bell were in hiroshima and obama was in yokahama at the same time. >> did president obama owe hiroshima a visit? >> i think it would have been nice but frankly if the president would have done this, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about what a great trip he had to india. monica and pat would be saying enough with the apology tour. so, i think this is not an invitation that has been head lined and i don't think there were any expectations of this president. he has been gone for ten days.

it's time for him to come home. >> this is a historical wasps nest he didn't want to polk. he sent the u.s. ambassador to japan to the memorial in august on the actual anniversary of the dropping of the bomb. so, there was no need for him to go. you don't want to suggest moral he quiff vow lens in the role of the united states in world war ii and imperial japan in world war ii. the dropping of those weapons brought an end to the war. it was a last resort. truman didn't want to do it. but at the risk of having a full ground invasion of japan to end the war, it was the right moral decision. >> that's proposition has been attacked wildly. >> i understand. >> you know that the wisdom of the historian is that the emperor was on the verge of collapse anyway. >> it's history. he collapsed because we dropped nuclear weapons on him. >> correction is in order. harry truman didn't do it reluctantly. he said i didn't give it a second thought.

i don't think the bombs on those cities was morally justified. if you had to use it, they should have used it at the end of tokyo bay. >> do you think it's a stain on american honor? do you think it's a conspiracy of silence afterwards. >> no. i do believe it's a serious moral issue. if you believe terrorism is the killing of innocent people for political reasons, we killed 200,000 people to get the surrender. >> mort. >> to go back to that, i can't validated whatever the theory is. all i read indicates that it was an attempt to avoid having a ground invasion. there are interpretations of the willingness of japan to fight to the end. i wouldn't have wanted a lot of american soldiers to die. a terrible thing to witness and be a part of. here we are in a situation where iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons and

threatening to destabilize a whole region. what are we doing. there are complicated issues that involve a level of weaponry that nobody is comfortable with. >> these people that were killed were civilians. >> without question. >> they are civilians. >> i understand issue 4, jfk and obama add oughts. >> let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any faux to assure -- foe to assure the success of liberty. >> john f. kennedy, 35th president of the united states in his 1961 inaugural address promised a foreign policy that

would be rooted in, quote, unquote,-the success of liberty, not only at home but worldwide. 50 years later in a post cold war world, the united states has a different foreign policy and a different military policy. here are the words of our current president on the coordinate of our foreign policy, quote. once we get beyond matters of self-defense, though, i'm convinced that it will almost always be in our strategic interest to act multilaterally rather than unilaterally when we use force around the world. acting multilaterally means doing what george h.w. bush and his team did in the first gulf war engaging in the hard diplomatic work of obtaining most of the world support for our actions and making sure our tions serve to further recognize

international norm, closed quote. question, who do you phrase the multilateral policy of president obama? i ask you, mort. >> i mean, i support it without question. it's always helpful wherever you can to have a whole group of allies with you on many levels, politically, morally and otherwise. there are times when it's just not available. john kennedy was directing his comments to the soviet union at that point. they were our principal enemy. nobody could imagine they would have restraint. >> the president is traveling a lot abroad, making acquaintances, friends perhaps with the leaders. he is treating them almost beyond the level of diplomacy. it becomes a relationship. is that good for multilateral foreign policy? >> i think the personal dimension of international is understated and under valued and under appreciated. it's important. there is another part. if there is one thing that the

word looks to the united states for, it's leadership, demands the use of force. they do not think that this president is tough enough, particularly in the regions of the middle east from one end to the other. >> do you feel that. >> with respect to iran, we are going to find out what we are prepared to do and what we aren't. i don't know what the best answer is. all i can say, there is a cumulative view in that part of the world that obama is not providing the strong enough leadership that they look for. >> the message here was maybe to the neocons home and israel trying to push is into a military confrontation with iran that this president will not go it alone. that he would take the message from the rest of the world, principally our allys that this is not a good idea and that's what he was trying to say. >> this is what he writes, quote, it may be preferable to have the support of our allies in military campaigns but our immediate safety cannot be held

hostage to the desire for international consensus. if we have to go it alone, the american people stand ready to pay any price and bear any burden to protect our country. i would argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate quote unquote i tally sized word imminent threat to our society so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, individual actively preparing to strike u.s. targets or allies with which the u.s. has defense agreements and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future and al-qaeda falls in that category. what do you think of that. >> i agree with that. >> that is hard line, pat. >> iran does not fall in that category. it doesn't threaten us now. it doesn't -- do you think they will attack the united vogeico, committed to providing service to its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com

or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.