the folks at the brookings tax policy center helped us put this together. these different groups of popcorn represent your income level. the bigger the bag, the bigger the income level of the group we're talking about. i want to use the popcorn to demonstrate how much of the total pie, how much of the total tax revenue is generated by each group. let's start over here with the little one. these are people who earn less than $30,000 a year. that, by the way, is about 44.8% of all households in the united states. they don't pay a lot in income tax. in fact, generally speaking they get back 4.8%. i'm going to put a few kernels into their pot because they are not paying taxes. let's look at another group. this bag represents people who earn between $30 and $100,000 a year. that's about 40% of households in the united states. this group represents a contribution of 18%. 18% of the total personal tax revenues come from here. i'm going to put about two handfuls of popcorn in the bowl to represent the taxes they pay. this bag represents people who earn between $100,000 and a million dollars a year. $100,000 to a million a year. that's about 15% of u.s. households. guess what, this group tributes more than 60% to the total pie. i'm going to at that in, about six handfuls. you've got three, four, five, six and a few extras. that's how much this group -- people who earn between $100,000 and a million dollars put that much into the total pie. now let's talk about the group president obama is referring to when he talks about the buffett rule. people who earn more than a million dollars a year. right now this group contributes 25% to the total tax revenue. so we'll give it about two and a half scoops. they by the way pay an annual tax rate of about 20%. so when you look at the amount groups contribute to total personal income tax revenues in the united states, you'll see the lowest income americans don't generally contribute, about 45% of americans pay no income tax and are net recipients of income tax or federal moneys. this group, 30 to $100,000 contributes 18%. people earning between $100,000 and a million contribute 63%. and people earning over a million dollars contribute about 24%. now, let's take this discussion a little further. will cain is a cnn contributor with a bit of a conservative bent. good friend of mine. will, good to see you. will, the rich contribute an awful lot of popcorn. a cnn poll finds seven in ten americans believe the tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to ordinary workers. that certainly seems to be behind president obama's push to raise tacks on millionaires through this buffett rule. you say that has more to do with envy and less to do with sensible tax policy. >> i do say that. i say that for different reasons. the top income earners in the country, the last bowl, the bowl of the richest among us and some of the bowl next to it pay about 36% of total income taxes while the top 10%, which would be the last bowl, the richest bowl and most of the next bowl pay 70% of total income taxes. what is fair, ali? for them to pay 100%? this definition of fairness gets hard to define. >> let's talk about it for a second. there's a real discussion, should we be talking about the tax code as being fair or efficient. what's your sense of if we're all agreeing we don't love this tax code, what should it represent? should the rich pay more? should everybody pay the amount? what's your thought. >> first of all, i don't think it's that subjective of an interpretation. when you have the poll that shows how many people think the tax code benefits the risk, this flies in the face of that. one thing the tax code does it's so riddled with exceptions and exemptions, it becomes like swiss cheese. who does that benefit? we want to say the rich but really those connected. those with lobbyists, tax lawyers, that's where you can make a difference, make it something everybody can understand. my complaint is, your reference to buffett rule and president obama that doesn't solve any problems, just makes it more complex for some arbitrary fairness, semblance of envy for the cheap seats. we'll get this solved. we'll play to the rich guys. >> let's ask this, one of the reasons the president picked that million dollars and above, people at that level of earth, they don't have to earn that much money, can earn even less than that, make a lot of money through investments, dividends, through capital gains, which people who are at lower income levels generally can't participate in. if you're a working stiff in this country, your money that you earn goes toward consumption, goes toward what you do on a daily basis. there's sense you can't get into the place in life where you can benefit from a lower tax rate. is that fair? >> i think you have to answer that question to find out whether it's fair. what's the purpose of the tax code. is the purpose of the tax code to raise revenue for the government to pay for its expenditures. i think most people say yes. is the purpose of the tax code to influence behavior. it certainly has become that. a child tax credit. >> do you disagree with that? >> to some degree, ali. when you talk about capital gains we have to have a debate do you want to incentivize investment, startup venture capital has been good for the company. i have to be honest, i say yes, capital gains lower, you open yourself up to logical consistency. should we incentivize home ownership, having children? >> we do. >> talk about -- >> we do incentivize home ownership. we spend a lot of money encouraging home ownership. if you get a mortgage you can deduct the interest you pay from taxes. what that does is create a home ownership culture that says it's better to own a home than rent a home. guess what, the united states doesn't have a higher rate of home ownership than canada or germany, countries that don't offer that sort of thing. at the same time we want, need certain industries to be here. should we not use the tax code to say if you invest into this industry, put money into this industry, we'll encourage that by allowing you a bit of a tax break. >> i don't like that. i don't think the tax code should be a tool of social engineering. it's a debate to have. when you talk about tax gains you can talk about incentivizing investment. when you ask about the contaminate gains, it unfairly benefits the rich. the capital gains isn't about that, not playing favoritism. if you start seeing tax code overall as this tool for morality, evening the playing field, this tool for creating what you think is fair then you're having a conversation that has no real end. that's a rabbit hole you do down. fair is simple. if you want to incentivize, that's a fair conversation, capital gains is the beginning of that conversation. >> let me ask you this in a different way. if you are a wage earner, you pay a certain rate of tax. if your money, your wealth, the money you derive comes from the fact you have more money, and, hence, you invest it, and you get capital gains, dividends from your stocks, something lower wage earners do, you pay less money on that income. tell me why the average person watching this should think that's equitable. or are you saying equitable has nothing to do with it? >> i would say this. the reason that would be equitable, the reason i would defend capital gains as equitable is this. you've already paid taxes on your income you earned at some point. now you're talking about the amount of money you've taken and invested in some area of society, which usually gets taxed again at some corporate rate. finally it creates a hopeful profit you would pay another profit on. we as a society said let's treat that differently than income. i'd say, i'd take some exception to say it's unequitable. you pay taxes numerous times. we're trying to incentivize investment. now, i've been honest with you in this conversation. i realize that opens you up to using the tax code for all sorts of social engineering. i don't think the capital gains tax code is a symptom of rich guy getting a benefit that poorer people don't get. >> square this up for my politically, the fact is you saw the numbers. you you saw the number of people that approve the idea the rich, more than a million dollars a year, should pay higher taxes. an overwhelming number of democrats support that. a very large majority of independents and even a majority of republicans support that idea. this is a winning idea for president obama and a losing idea for mitt romney. >> well, great. so politics plays to cheap seats, popularity. if you think soaking the rich wasn't popular, ask the french revolution areas, ask them. it always been popular but that doesn't mean it's right. i'm not telling you the best thing to do politically i'm telling you the best thing to do that is right. >> will, thanks. a cnn commentator. whether you fear him, you cannot deny his influences on your taxes. what does he think about president obama's focus on fairness? >> they can't play to economic growth, they can't play to job creation, they can't speak to stable dollar, so they say let's distract you with shiny things, fairness, unending conversation. everybody can have their opinion on the subject. >> did he just say sex? more on that man, including republicans, mitt romney pledging never to raise taxes. what we achieved here. what we learned here. and what we pioneered here. all goes here. the one. the accord. smarter thinking from honda. like in a special ops mission? you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep, you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering, web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account. all right. today when we talk about taxes, the debate in washington has started to center around what is fair. it's also important to remember the real point of taxes, the way they started income taxes was to pay for things. fairness wasn't central to the discussion when taxes were invented. christine romans has a look at what you get for your tax dollars dollars. >> reporter: your money in fiscal year 2011, what are you getting for all that tax money? for starters, it's not enough. the federal government spent $3.6 trillion meaning they had to borrow $1.3 trillion. don't worry, if you pay taxes, you'll be paying the interest. again, where did that money go? let's start with medicare, medicaid and children's insurance program, the biggest slice of the pie. the blue. social security one-fifth, wars in afghanistan and iraq cost $159 billion last year, a fifth of the total spent on defense. now, spending on safety net programs designed to keep americans out of poverty dropped last year. the interest on our debt amounted to about 6%. that's the purple wedge there, $0.06 of every dollar. the remaining was infrastructure, science, education, benefits for retired federal employees and veterans. that's how your tax dollars are spent. ali. >> thanks, christine. if you're waiting for tax reform don't hold your breath? why? one of the most powerful fiscal conservative voices in this country won't allow room for compromise. and he's not an elected official. his name is grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform. that's a group that secured pledges to never raise taxes from likely presidential candidate mitt romney as well as almost all the republicans elected in congress. he warns those who break the pledge will pay a political price. grover and i sat down to discuss his new book "debacle, obama's war on jobs and growth." what we can do now for our future. first i wanted to know where grover norquist stands on all this talk on tax fairness. >> a lot of impetus to impose the income tax, imposed on today's dollars over $10 million a year, just going to hit a few. i would argue the reason why left of center politicians who want the government bigger play to fairness. they can't play to economic growth, job creation, stable dollar. they say let's distract you with shiny things, which is fairness, an unending conversation. like sex everybody can have their opinion on it. >> brand-new poll taken april 13th to 15th favoring a 30% tax for the very wealthy, millionaires, the buffett rule. 90% of democrats support the idea. 69% of independents. even a majority of republican voters polled -- as you know they tend to be accurate -- more than half support it. >> polls look like that in washington state at the beginning of the campaign to impose an income tax on the rich. as they had a conversation the numbers flipped from two to one for it to two to one against it. you take other polls, rasmussen has done an entire book on polling on taxes. as first glance some of the questions look like that. you go oh, that's disappointing. then you ask the second question, if they raise the taxes on rich people, are they coming after you next? >> that's fear mongering. why is that the logic it would be the case. >> minimal tax, personal income tax. >> there are people that point to you as the man behind the inability of elected officials to soften positions and negotiate and compromise in order to get deals done because they are worried about what will happen because they signed your pledge. frequently a few say they no longer feel bound by your pledge because it doesn't let them get work done. if we're back in the mixed scenario in november are you going to loosen the reins and let stuff get down. >> that was the question people were asking. all of 2011 we had that discussion. some said we can't get spending reduced unless we give democrats tax increases. some of us were old enough to remember 1982 and 1990, you put tax increases on the table promises of spending reduction evaporate, disappear. '82, taxes went up, spending didn't go down, it went up $2 for every tax increase. '90 it didn't go down, it went up. in both cases you not only didn't get as much spending restraint as promised, you got none. what happened in 2011, $2.5 trillion over the next decade. you have to police that but you would any agreement and not a single dollar in tax increase. in 2008 governor mitt romney said if you bail out the auto industry you can kiss it good-bye. i spoke with the man behind the bailout this week and found out what he thinks more than three years later. >> they were fundamentally wrong. mitt romney in saying there was some private sector alternative was fundamentally wrong. >> will romney's words cost him a key battle grounds state in november? that's next on "your $$$$$." buying this juicer online was unbelievable. what a bargain! [ female announcer ] sometimes a good deal turns out to be not such a good deal. but new bounty gives you value you can see. in this lab demo, one sheet of new bounty leaves this surface cleaner than two sheets of the leading ordinary brand. so you can clean this mess with half as many sheets. bounty has trap and lock technology to soak up big spills and lock them in. why use more when you can use less? new bounty. the clean picker upper. i tell you what i can spend. i do my best to make it work. i'm back on the road safely. and i saved you money on brakes. that's personal pricing. when president obama took office in 2009, the american auto industry was losing billions of dollars a year. gm alone lost almost $31 billion in 2008. now, this week i spoke with steven ratner. evers the man the president picked to be the czar that would save the auto industry. >> when i took the job, i wasn't at all sure we had a solution to it, but i finally convinced myself i couldn't make it any worse and therefore i'd give it a try. i did satisfy myself pretty early on it was an important role for the domestic u.s. auto industry. >> pretty incredible when you see where it is today, obviously ford leading that pack to be in better shape but they were in better shape then anyway. but to see what american carmakers have managed to come up with in the last few years with the government's help. kind of impressive. >> it's sad but it's true it took a crisis. the changes partly at the government's behest, partly themselves was due to the crisis. the president said to every constituency you have to sacrifice, creditors, suppliers, it took this kind of crisis to work. >> with the benefit of time, what would have done differently in those deals? >> i don't think there's a lot we would have done differently. i have said publicly a little more sacrifice by the stakeholders might have been a good thing. i wish we had a quicker, clearer management plan for general motors rather than several ceos. modestly this worked out as good as we can imagine. >> ratner said it took a crisis to turn it around. i want to show you how bad it was and how good it is with all big three profitable. start with bottom line. general motors lost $31 billion in 2008. look at 2011, up $7.6. ford in 2008 down $14.7 billion, 2011 up $20.2 billion. look at chrysler, 2011 numbers, down $660 million. we don't have 2008 numbers because chrysler paid a private equity firm to take the debt off its hands. but look at 2011, up $183 million. not close to competitors but in the right direction. let's look at the number of employees. that was part of the president's calculus, too. look how many jobs would have been lost. in 20082, 243,000 people employed, in 2008, 213,000. in 2011 they employed nearly 81,000 people. in choosing to bail out the auto industry, the president had half a million jobs at stake. that's only the automakers. doesn't include suppliers or dealerships or all those businesses that exist to supply those towns that make cars. there were plenty of critics about auto bailout including mitt romney who argued a structured bankruptcy could have achieved the same result without the massive cost to the government. i asked steven ratner about that. >> they were fundamentally wrong. there were only really two choices for the company. one version what we did, doesn't have to be exactly like what we did, the other was let them liquidate. there was no private capital. they would have closed l doors, fired their workers and gone out of business. >> nowhere in america is car manufacturing more important than michigan, a battleground state that could decide the next president. jim, the president bailed out the auto industry. it's very popular in michigan. he's not afraid to take a jab at his likely gop rival governor mitt romney who was against the bailout very clearly but still has deep roots in michigan. his father, george, was governor of the state. he was born there. how is this playing out in michigan? >> ali, it was surprising to see him go to michigan early on. if the president loses michigan it's a battleground state. it's sort of a leading democrat state. things don't look too well for the president come this november. it was not surprising in reaching out to voters in michigan that the president would highlight the fact he supported the bailout and his likely opponent mitt romney did not. as a matter of fact back in november 2008 the former massachusetts governor wrote an op-ed in the "new york times" titled "let detroit go bankrupt" in which he voiced his opposition to the bailout saying it would basically wipe out the automotive industry. though the president didn't mention mitt romney by name in dearborn this week, it was no secret who he was talking about. >> jim acosta reporting for you. next economists blame president obama at high gas prices. this week he blames wall street. i'll tell you why his argument doesn't hold up. and congressman dennis kucinich joins us. >> it's time to get serious about the rising price of gasoline. and it's time to get serious about investing the future energy needs of this nation. >> i'm going to guess congressman kucinich is going to try to prove me wrong between oil and speculation and gas prices. that's coming up next on "your $$$$$." [ male announcer ] if you believe the mayan calendar, on december 21st polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space. which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd, and you still need to retire. td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans? ♪ ♪ wow... ♪ [ female announcer ] sometimes, all you need is the smooth, creamy taste of werther's original caramel to remind you that you're someone very special. ♪ werther's original caramels. oh, yeah? [ chris ] you can call us 24-7, get quotes online, start a claim with our smartphone app. you name it, we're here, anytime, anywhere, any way you want it. that's the way i need it. any way you want it. [ man ] all night? all night. every night? any way you want it. that's the way i need it. we just had ourselves a little journey moment there. yep. [ man ] saw 'em in '83 in fresno. place was crawling with chicks. i got to go. ♪ any way you want it ♪ that's the way you need it ♪ any way you want it ♪ this is my grandson. and if it wasn't for a screening i got, i might have missed being here to meet him. the health care law lets those of us on medicare now get most preventive care for free like annual wellness visits, immunizations, and some cancer screenings. and that's when they caught something serious on mine. but we could treat it before it was too late. i'll be around to meet number two! get the screenings you need. learn more at healthcare.gov. you don't want to miss any of this! we can't afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions while millions of american families get the short end of the stick. that's not the way the market should work. >> so this week president obama announced that he's going after speculators in the oil markets who may be manipulating prices. the president is proposing a plan that would boost oversight of trading and oil futures, increase fines on people found guilty of manipulating the price of oil and raise the margin requirement for trading oil. in other words, traders would have to put more money down to make a trade so they have got more skin in the game. that might discourage people from speculating as much as they do. the president is right to want to rein in the oil markets. he's wrong to suggest that somehow doing so is going to lower the price of gasoline. to be fair the president isn't claiming that prices would drop overnight if these changes were made but i'd be surprised if these proposals have any impact at all on gas prices. congressman dennis kucinich of ohio disagrees with me and agrees with the president on this. congressman, always a pleasure to talk with you. one never suspects a political motive behind the things you say. i'm happy to have you hear challenging me. draw me a line between cutting speculation, manipulative speculation out of the oil market and lowering gas prices in america. >> we know, ali, there is a speculative premium. several days ago i listened to your report, you said as much as $10 to $20 of a $100 base for a barrel of oil could be connected to speculation. i had senator coburn on a committee i was on, he said between 15 and $18. let's use your numbers. there is a speculative premium. the question is what impact does it have on a gallon of gas? $0.72 of a price of a barrel of oil is related to the cost of crude. if you take the 20% as the top amount that might be subject to speculation, that could easily be translated into saying as much as 14% of the cost of oil directly connected to speculation and that translates to a higher price at the bump. there is a connection between speculation and the cost of gasoline. >> you come from a state heavily heavily hit by housing prices. can't you make the same argument to a house. a cost connected to land and building materials in the house, some of it is speculation. a speculative premium in oil. there's always going to be one. >> it's not the same thing. as a matter of fact, though, i will take your argument about how the lack of discipline in markets with respect to credit did he fault swaps actually ended up damaging the housing market in the united states because there was no regulation. now, the question the president raises is will increase regulation of the oil companies lessen their speculative fervor. that's the hope. the futures trading commission this week, ali, put a new rule down that effectively gave the oil companies the ability to retain -- to retain their ability to deal in derivatives without having to comply with derivative dealer rules. there is a little bit of a contradiction here which needs to be explored a little more with those that have a little more knowledge about this than i do. if we want to get the trading commission back in the game for consumers we should be zeroing in on what market mechanisms enable speculators to be able to profit. >> so congressman, look, there's always been speculation. there's no question about this. we have in this country for 15 or 20 or 25 years whittled away at important regulation. we have no disagreement on this and no disagreement with the president about the fact these rules he wants to impose are probably good. they are necessary and probably good. let me ask you this. how do you -- i think the word speculation is misused in this whole discussion. we have speculation anywhere there's a market. we're looking at manipulative speculators, people big enough, nefarious enough to affect the market for their own gain in a way to damage others. how do we find these people? who are we targeting? who is this boogie man? >> you come up with an interesting assessment. in a sense capitalizing by government. for example, the government hints it's going to attack iran, prices go up. speculators then say we're going to guess that the price down the road of oil is going to go up. they help drive the price of oil up now. it's not related to what it's going to be in the future. we're really paying a premium now so the government does have a role in temporary speculation by being a little more cautious in its predictions about when it's going to take military action that might in some way interfere with the laws of supply and demand. i'll grant you that. with respect to manipulation, there is manipulation going on where we see the current trading environment being able to jack up the price without regard to the laws of supply and demand. that's what happened right now. you have lower demand as you pointed out a couple days ago but we do have higher prices. so in that particular mathematical equation between low -- between low demand and high prices, that's where you have the room for manipulation. >> let me ask you this, congressman. i appreciate someone who takes on my arguments by watching my reports and holding them against me. i respect you for that. when we look at housing, evaluations were done incorrectly, disclosures were wrong, people mislead clients, clients able to get mortgages without disclosures. a whole lot of things were wrong and we realize we needed to regulate it better. we never wanted it, never designed them to make houses go up or down. isn't there something wrong with the president working on the industry with the actual aim of making the price go down. isn't that an interference with markets? >> well, prices should somehow conform to the laws of supply and demand. if the laws of supply and demand are adversely affected by speculation it's an appropriate role for government to look at that. when we're talking about housing, we saw the fed look the other way with did he fault swaps and other instruments. the fact of the matter is, the price of housing was being bet to go higher and higher, yet the american people weren't really seeing any direct benefit unless they happen to sell the home at the moment, which many could not. so what happened is when the price of housing collapsed, people lost their highest invest men. everyone has to have a roof over their head. not everyone is using a particular type of car. we have to do mongolia about stopping the speculation in the markets and also have to look at the role of the federal reserve here because the feds look the other way. they were cops on the beat who looked the other way while prices in housing were going up. frankly their dollar policies have not really criticed to price stability in oil markets. this is another issue that really hasn't been getting much discussion. >> we'll discuss that. you're absolutely right about that. it has to do with it. a dollar premium in oil. senator kucinich, always nice to talk to you. thanks for having a hardy discussion with me on oil. senator kucinich from ohio. still to come, china's economic growth is slowing down. should americans applaud or panic? what does it mean for the global economy, u.s. markets and your economy. coming up next. what we achieved. what we learned here. what we achieved. and what we pioneered here. all goes here. the one. the accord. smarter thinking from honda. (female announcer) most life insurance companies look at you and just see a policy. at aviva, we do things differently. we're bringing humanity back to life insurance. that's why only aviva rewards you with savings for getting a check-up. it's our wellness for life program, with online access to mayo clinic. see the difference at avivausa.com. the international monetary fund said this week the outlook for the global economy has improved but warned there are still major risks that policymakers have to address. good news for the u.s., imf raised its growth outlook. for europe things still remain bleak. even emerging economies, the largest, of course, being china have cooled. cnn's eunice un takes is inside. >> looking to land a job, not just any job. >> translator: i'm considering the company, if the job is relevant to my major and if the job has regular hours, she says. i cherish my personal time. >> reporter: gone are the days of the docile worker, the economy grew. the slowdown has yet to worry candidates at the job market. all right spooking investors, concerned about a possible hard landing here after years of double digit growth. the government has been on the campaign to cool the world's largest economy tightening money to rein in prices. everyone is watching prices in china, everyone worried it's a bubble and prices could come crashing down. real estate is a driver of growth accounting for a fifth of the economy helping to lift prices of the world's steel, cement and other materials. lending restrictions and other measures are having an effect in more than half the cities tracked by government, like this city where prices are down 9% from a year ago and property agents resorted to giving away beamers to get customers to buy new apartments. >> translator: people are excited and coming because of our bmw giveaway, after all, it is a bmw. their fears the real estate market could burden with bad debt and limit the ability to stimulate its economy at a time when manufacturers are seeing fewer orders from europe and struggling global growth. factory workers remain optimistic. >> translator: we already have a house, she says. i'm thinking of buying a car. >> reporter: one of the many chinese joining the country's consumer class. cnn, beijing. for more on china i'm joined by peter navarro, professor of economics and public policy at uc irvine also the author of 'n' death by china." peter good to see you. thank you for joining us. >> good to see you in my home surf. >> great to be here. let's talk about this for a second. when china's economic growth slows down, markets here react badly. investors do not like that. they feel that with slower growth in other parts of the world, we depend on india, we depend on china to keep on chugging faster. do we gain or lose from china slowing down a little bit? >> ali, we lose. what tells us when china is slowing down, china continues to have the structural problem that is killing our own economy. that structural problem is that it's heavily export dependent. in order for china to grow it basically over the last few years has flooded united states and europe with illegally subsidized exports. >> when you say illegally subsidized exports, what do you mean? >> run them down. china manipulates its currency which acts as a tariff. >> lower than it should. >> right. >> doesn't let it float freely. >> stops cheap at walmart. they engage in illegal export subsidies. when they send something here, they give the producer an extra amount of money. so if a company in akron, ohio is trying to compete with a company there, they can't do that. so we lose jobs there. they steal our intellectual property, which lowers their cost. a pharmaceutical or automotive firm here can't compete fairly. >> you're conveniently missing one point. that is there is one other beneficiary to everything else china is doing. >> the consumer. >> the consumer. >> our stuff is cheap because of all those things you talk about. >> here is what every consumer needs to understand when they walk into a walmart. the stuff is cheap at walmart but there are consequences. when people go in walmart, pick up a good and says, made in china, they have to think i'm going to lose my job or my friend is going to lose their job if i keep buying this cheap, artificially subsidized good. if i buy that good, that money is going to go to fund what is essentially a very rapid military buildup. if i basically keep buying that cheap stuff, we won't have anything in our community -- >> what can you do to quinn people? they aren't making those decisions. particularly in a tough economic environment they are buying the least expensive things they can buy. >> we have elections. i hope 2012 will define the issues. we tried everything else in terms of getting going with keynesian stuff, monetary policy, fiscal, i think the best jobs program is trade reform with china. >> always a pleasure to see you. >> good to see you. >> peter navarro a professor at uc irvine and author of death by china. did you know doctors in china are using 3d smart phones to treat eye disorders in children? coming up next conversation with ceo of the world's leader in 3g and next generation mobile technologies paul jab obstacle of qualcomm. administering her, and just making her comfortable. one night britta told me about a tradition in denmark, "when a person dies," she said, "someone must open the window so the soul can depart." i smiled and squeezed her hand. "not tonight, britta. not tonight." [ female announcer ] to nurses everywhere, thank you, from johnson & johnson. [ female announcer ] to nurses everywhere, ♪ [ ping! ] [ ping! ping! ] that's why i use new tampax radiant. it helps keep my period invisible, combing tampax's best-ever leak protection with a revolutionary resealable wrapper so all they'll see is me. [ ping! ] ♪ hi. totally new, awesomely-invisible tampax radiant. check out the whole radiant collection. today i own 165 wendy's restaurants. and i get my financing from ge capital. but i also get stuff that goes way beyond banking. we not only lend people money, we help them save it. [ junior ] ge engineers found ways to cut my energy use. [ cheryl ] more efficient lighting helps junior stay open later... [ junior ] and serve more customers. so you're not just getting financial capital... [ cheryl ] you're also getting human capital. not just money. knowledge. [ junior ] ge capital. they're not just bankers... we're builders. [ junior ] ...and they've helped build my business. you own a phone pretty much everybody does it's probably about a qualcomm chip in it. this year qualcomm brings the snap dragon s4 chip to the market driving your tv, notebook, tablet, just about any high-tech mobile device that comes out in the future. in china, two-thirds of all internet users access the web via their mobile phone. that's about as many people as live in the united states. i spoke with qualcomm's ceo paul jacobs who says the biggest growth is in the emerging markets. >> people are talking about billion smartphones shipped by 2014, half into emerging markets. focused on the high and low end of the market and seeing that countries like china and india grow very rapidly. demand smartphones. we're building chips for those. >> qualcomm reported record financial results for its second quarter this week but said filling new orders is presenting a challenge because of shortage the of machinery to build those chips in taiwan. i asked him if the slowdown we're seeing in europe and india even china, the economic slowdown, is having an impact on sales. >> people don't see phones anymore as a luxury. they really see it as a staple and, therefore, it's a little less sensitive to economic downturns or slowdowns. we are seeing very strong growth in both china and india, and india, a little later in getting its 3g, now 4g networks online but they're not happening. we are seeing strong growth and what happened for qualcomm in india in particular is we used to sell at a very low end of the marketance and now are able to se across the entire tier. higher end and lower end devices. so it's really opened up a lot of the market to us, and china also has been very strong. what's happened there is that the operators are really competing with each other to get people on to mobile broadband. as we know, in many of the markets, the phone is the only way people are getting on internet besides going to an internet cafe. it's changing peoples lives dramatically. >> changing the world for good is a big part of the qualcomm foundation. that's part of qualcomm, and why it's part of the $10 million x prize competition seeking to tackle the world's challengeses through innovation and its visions. i asked about bringing health care to the palm of your hand. >> a lot of companies out there building different kinds of sensors that can monitor different things about your body. what we're doing with the x prize foundation is to get them to pull this all together so teams come together from around the world and compete to build a little box you can hold that might talk to different devices, sensors you might have on you or take samples of blood or spit or things like that, and diagnose diseases. and do it so that somebody, say, a lightly trained health professional in an emerging market could diagnose people or even a consumer in a developed market might be able to diagnosis themselves. >> paul jacobs is just one of those people participating in the visioneering context for the next x prize. a fascinating gothering of technologi technologists, entra pra newers identifying the next big grand challenge that can and should be tackled. also why i'm in los angeles. excited to be a part of it. next week aisle tell you more about space travel already under way. you'll know in 2004 they award $10ds million to the makers of space ship one, the first privately manned aircraft. i'll have more on what vision they come up with in next week's show. all right. coming up next on "your $$$$$'s" my close call, an those i have to thank for it. bum-bum, bum-bum ♪ - ♪ ai, ai, ai - ♪ bum-bum - ♪ bum-bum, bum-bum - ♪ [ ice rattles rhythmically ] ♪ bum-bum, bum-bum, bum-bum ♪ ♪ [ imitates guitar noise ] ♪ [ vocalizing up-tempo heavy metal song ] ♪ [ vocalizing continues ] ♪ [ all singing ] the redesigned, 8-passenger pilot. smarter thinking. from honda. ♪ ♪ wow... ♪ [ female announcer ] sometimes, all you need is the smooth, creamy taste of werther's original caramel to remind you that you're someone very special. ♪ werther's original caramels. that's why i take doctor recommended colace® capsules. i have hemorrhoids and yes, i have constipation. that's why i take colace®. [ male announcer ] for occasional constipation associated with certain medical conditions, there's colace® capsules. colace® softens the stool and helps eliminate the need to strain. stimulant-free, comfortable relief. no wonder more doctors recommend it. say yes to colace®! [ male announcer ] we're giving away fifty-thousand dollars worth of prizes! enter weekly to win! go to colacecomfort.com to enter! part of my job as chief business correspondent at cnn is keeping airlineses honest about fears, fares and customer service. sometimes we forget what they do is to get us from place to place safely. i fly more than most i know and on second my second emergency landing. a tough one. a flight delta 1063 from jfk to l.a.x. within moments of that flight taking off it looks like we had a bird strike. the pilot had to turn around and bring that plane safely have in. i want to give a shout-out to the crew on delta 1063. the pilot and copilot and those flight attendants who kept everybody on that flight safe and comfortable and i want to give a shout-out to air crews that do that every single day. every time they take up one of those planes and land it, they're doing us a