and yet it's hend eveeybody panicc. you had a shopping list of uff you wanted to buy when we supposedly corcted. david: put an m 80 next to anthony and he wouldn't get frazzled. >> sy right in the zone. what you think based on the situation, react on the situation, the economy is stronger than people expect. and the corporate economy is way strong. the middle class and lower midd class economy not so much, david, but the corporate economy is strong, that means stocks are going up. david:tay awayrom the smaller cap stocks and go to the big guys? >> not necessari. the correction in the russell 2000 long overdue, that's going to play itself out. probably another 5 or 6 we'll be sitting here a year from now and stocks will be higher sma a large cap stks. david: what do you keep as a safety inase stocks further go bad. >> you want a certa percentage of portfolio liquid, whether it's cash or sho-tm >> short-term bonds meaning at? what specifically should people be buying. >> if we' talking about 90 day treasuries to theeone,

approval from an earlier concurrence by jus sis sotomayor in which she defined gps monitoring kprae hending record that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial and sexual associations. and what's very interesting about this ruling on this reasoning is it didn't just apply to the smart phone, which we all know reveals a whole host of information about us, but it also applied to that flip phone which doesn't tell us that much more than the call log details, who you called, who called you and for how long the call lasted, which is about what's collected in the meta data collection. and so my point is that this strongly suggests that the court will be highly skeptical of the claim that the third party doctrine can be applied in this new context, that it means that when the government collects the meta telephoning data and other meta data that there is no fourth amendment violation. i'm not saying that meta data would therefore be impermissible. what i think is we'll see a shift. whether or not the foreign intelligence section applies and new pressure on what's known as the special needs

with the start of the fiscal year, the practice will be hending for some of the more than 60 familiesednesday they found letters under their door telling them they had a few days to move out. some pound for the hospital, now primarily a shelter. those with children don't want to go there. >> they don't have no refrigerator. it's not clear. >> reporter: council member jim graham believest's all about cost cutting. >> if i was homeless and offered a hotel room with my private entrance, my private bathroom, possibly tv and wi-fi, i would prefer that to a hospital room with no bathroom, no private entrance, no privacy whatsoever. >> reporter: and no place to raise a family or even for a family to stay for an extended period of time, a finding that came in the aftermath of the disappearance of rah leisha rudd. affordable housing remains beyond their reach. >> everyone needs somewhere that's safe. >> reporter: that will indeaf thatbly mean more people at d.c. general, filling it up again with more families than can be adequately looked after in one location. >> now it's up to 190 families.

if they get ream ri hended, that previous order gets reinstated without having an opportunity to appear before a judge and maybe argue that your circumstances have dhanged. what we see is 72 weeks. so the other key set of findings or another key set of findings from this report, and, you know, key sort of set of analysis is that we compare and the bottom line finding is that most removals are consistent with dhs enforcement priorities. this falls outside of dhs's current priorities, the bottom stripe, the purple striet. and then people who have been con vekted of crimes. let me make three-points about the overall finds. 95% of all dhs removals fall within three or more of these categories. so 95% of everyone removed meets one or more of dhs's priorities. and the second point includes 93% of everyone removed by the bush administration. so the bush administration adhered to obama's enforcement priorities. so when you look at these data, it's a little bit surprising that the moral ton memos should have been a major source of c controver controversy, both historically and in the data, that

approval from an earlier concurrence by jus sis sotomayor in which she defined gps monitoring kprae hendingecord that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial and sexual associations. and what's very interesting about this ruling on this reasoning is it didn't just apply to the smart phone, which we all know reveals a whole host of information about us, but it also applied to that flip phone which doesn't tell us that much more than the call log details, who you called, who called you and for how long the call lasted, which is about what's collected in the meta data collection. and so my point is that this strongly suggests that the court will be highly skeptical of the claim that the third party doctrine can be applied in this new context, that it means that when the government collects the meta telephoning data and other meta data that there is no fourth amendment violation. i'm not saying that meta data would therefore be impermissible. what i think is we'll see a shift. whether or not the foreign intelligence section applies and new pressure on what's known as the special needs do