melt-up as a result. get "the wall street journal" editorial board, mary o'grady, charlie gasparino, independent women's forum. patrice. patrice what do you make of the backup in rates, does it worry you? >> it worries me slightly. it is important to keep rates down and we're doing very well. if the rates are driven about china potentially pulling market we borrowed from them, that is a case for worry. we have such a high market and taught economy right now it is something to keep on our radar. neil: mary, we explained china is thinking about halting additional treasury purposes. i don't think they have been making a lot of new ones. i could be wrong. japan said much the same. should we be worried? >> i'm not wore i had at all about the 10-year. neil: it is still very low. >> not only that we're hoping to get back to a normal yield curve. longer term bond should have higher yields and this very flat yield curve, i don't think was good for the economy. you know, if we were talking about an inverted yield curve, that is different thing. neil: let me explain flat, the gap between really short-term rates and longer rates -- >> there is no spread. neil: there is no spread. now you have more wiggle room. >> point out a couple things, we don't control, the government doesn't control interest rates. we can have influence on short-term interest rates but the interest rates everybody pays on mortgages and credit cards it is all keyed off the various treasury bond which are controlled by investors. neil: right. >> i think here's the one thing that worries me about this, by the way today is not, shouldn't go out and sell all your stocks because of this but if we engage in trade war rhetoric with china, if, that could have an impact on bond prices, they could start unloading our bonds. that will raise interest rates to, five, the 10, the 30. that will cause -- neil: it has been a long time. >> that could cause a degree of economic pain. i will say one thing, one of the things i worry about with president trump is the trade rhetoric and you know this is just one aspect, if you unwind nafta. if you start engaging in protectionist policies with china, other bad stuff will happen. they can do it to us. one thing china can do to us, they can screw around with our interest rates, because they hold so much of it, so much our bonds. that is a worry for me. if president trump really goes there, with china, in this whole, in his populist trade rhetoric. neil: uber investor bill miller, patrice, as i said at the outset isn't worried about it. he thinks to both these people's point here you get up to 3%, north of that on 10-year note still historically low, mary, you would agree? you will continue to see the markets race up another 30%, it would take us to 32, 33,000 on the dow. what do you think of that? >> that is great if you have a 401(k) like myself and many others. but i think it is troublesome and worrisome, if we're thinking about what this means for our trade deficits, what it moans for our international trading in general particularly with china, if that has impact on interest rates and how our markets are working. i do join with my colleagues thinking that overheated rhetoric with china, going back and forth what we've seen coming off the campaign trail and turning america into a nationalist, almost, isolationist perspective is really not helpful. so we'll see what happens when president trump goes to davos. >> i see this as a sign the fed is normalizing. you know, nothing else is free in the world, why should credit be free? they tried to make credit essentially free. neil: we got used to that. >> yeah, that's true but i think it also had costs as well as benefits. they thought it was going to spur the economy. we did not have a strong economy during the obama years. and i think getting back to a normal yield curve will actually be a positive for the economy. >> but the fed isn't doing this -- >> quantitative easing affected this. >> we have spike in yields today because of worry with china. i agree with you 100% on normalization, credit should not be free. the credit bubble that obama created through the fed, when obama, obama gave then the cover to do all of that, it was part of a joint resolution between bernanke and obama, that created a bubble in the stock market. but here is where i worry. if you have the fed normalizing, if you have china boycotting or selling, if you're an average investor, you can get a 4% yield on 10-year, would you risk your money in stocks? neil: what would be the level to do that? >> no, you would not or do so, depending on how fast the economy is growing, what are the other alternatives in the market. neil: 20 or 30% clip to roll the dice on the market. >> you can't say 4% is too high or too low. >> you're right. >> i do think the market in some way is reading the tea leaves where the fed is going with quantitative easing and rates. neil: guys, if you were to predict, stealing off a grade -- great editorial in your fine journal here, donald trump would go to davos and steve bannon would go to the curb i think the premise of the story was you would be called a liar, you have to be called a liar. patrice, that's what happened. it is weird, isn't it? >> it is interesting. i mean i don't think that we can expect you know, president trump to abandon the america first agenda. i think he is actually going there to trumpet it. he is going to go there at a time when we're seeing astronomical rise in our stock market. we're seeing low economic growth and low levels of unememployment. he has something to tout on international stage, maybe a little bit of leverage, a lap of you know, this is what happens when you have good economic policy. >> who is the last president to go? bill clinton? >> bill clinton. >> i'm sorry. go ahead, patrice. >> i was going to say, we have seen obama release his state of the union right before davos where he talked about increasing taxes on the wealthy. that didn't go over well with the bigwigs and ceos that attend the meeting. a nice contrast to what we've seen last several years. >> there are a lot of ceos, i don't go anymore. i purposely get it out of my contract. to go to milken because it is warmer in l.a. neil: to. fondue is terrific. >> they will throw me out. i had good times in davos but much more of a progressive -- neil: why is trump going? >> i think he is doing a victory lap. >> i agree with you, i agree with you about davos, really on the cutting-edge of conventional wisdom. >> progressive. neil: i like that, cutting edge of conventional wisdom. >> davos looking back in retrospect you could have predicted this. trump wants to succeed, he can not succeed only with the base that you know goes to the big stadium and roars him on in the red states. he has got to bring more people along. i agree with patrice. now is the moment to do it. because he has these wins under his belt. neil: emergence of bannon supposedly the brains behind that, dry dark -- very dark inaugural address. >> personally i like steve a lot. he is a apocalyptic drama queen. i think him not being there is helpful in this sense. not everything rises to the occasion of a crisis. you soften trump's rhetoric, you know, if he soften as little bit, he will be more appealing because i know trump personally. you do too. one-on-one he is a great guy. like when -- neil: his book characterizes him as sort of of mr. magoo. >> this is a question about this book, a little bit tangential, why steve brought this guy in the white house, gave him free rein. neil: he had like a disney fast pass. >> just insane. >> maybe he thought there was actually going to be a good story that came out of it. neil: that never happens. >> this guy? >> one of the problems here is that trump has seen what happened in alabama, and he learned his lesson about bannonnism i think from alabama. >> i think you're right. >> he has got to get rid of this weight around his -- neil: patrice, we have joe arpaio running for that arizona seat. what does the president do? >> he pardoned him. >> we'll see. i think he has learned the lessons of the past. he may not be so much of a arpaio supporter. >> not just him. kelly ward and a few others lurking around. >> i will just say about davos, we saw nikki haley have her u.n. moment. this could be his moment on the international stage. so the headline will be trump in davos. i think it will be very interesting to say the least. >> yeah. >> but reinforce that america first agenda, that has lifted the u.s. economy in a way that we haven't seen. >> let me make this point. sorry to interrupt you. he will steal the show there. >> yeah. >> you go to davos much? >> i go. i used to go. it is so boring. it is one, it is just one progressive stream of bs after another. neil: are we sending people there. >> i'm telling you, it is horrible. neil: we might be doing coverage from there. >> tell you the truth. i said this when i was there. >> when donald trump running for president, when he ran for president we had the economy growing less than 2% a-year. we had a lot of unhappy people. now the economy is growing more. i think a lot of bitterness against trade, against others, is sort of dissipating because people feel hope and opportunities and so forth this is the time to lose bannon. neil: it hasn't helped his poll numbers. >> i'm worried about poll numbers only -- neil: i agree that is fleeting t could change. >> it could change. not like he hasn't created impression through his tweets he is such a jerk. >> the way you ask questions in a poll can give you the answers you can't, if it is about him as person maybe people don't like him. if it is about how people are better off i think you get different answer. >> i want to know why bannon let him in the office. this is so insane, who told him, michael wolff -- neil: talking about michael wolff? >> there is you and michael wolff. let's bring michael wolff. we'll get a better deal. neil: we're waiting for spray from the cabinet meeting. thank you twice very, very much. we were talking about michael wolff, seems all major networks, much of mainstream media devoted quite a bit of time, 140 minutes collectively on the michael wolff book alone, 11 minutes on the clinton probe. six minutes on dow 25,000. the media research center. that is all you need to know, rich, what do you think? >> i think this is, this is just a tiny sliver of the liberal media, abc, cbs, nbc. this is their story of 2018 and perhaps oprah winfrey running in 2020. this is story they want to spend all their time on even though they can't confirm the most salacious details of michael wolff's book, elements of the wolff is debunked. he called wilbur ross the labor secretary. he is the commerce secretary. a story like that if he was targeting a liberal politician would have been dismissed or ignored, or media would have fought back against it. here, even though people like george stephanopoulos, well if 50% is true, it is still pretty important. if only 50% is true, this is somebody that does not rise up to the level of standard that is warrant this level of coverage. neil: what i immediately noticed they have all but painted, or the book painted the president out to be mr. magoo, totally out to lunch, incapable of being, concentrating on anything more than a few minutes, yet we get this live white house spray yesterday with top democrats and republicans. the president is very aggressive in this give-and-take. seems on top of his game. not at all picture michael wolff presents. what did you think of that? >> yeah, this is where this may, it is not meant to be flattering to the president but may be helpful to the president. you know donald trump is clearly not a pure tech president. he has done a lot of things might be considered mistakes or missteps in his rookie year but this is creating a caricature that he can easily exceed. it is sort, this was opportunity to have the words idiot and moron said over and over again on tv news but look at record of the first year. you have a rising stock market. record low unemployment. you have got these tax cuts that will give people bigger paychecks. you have got an expanding economy. the record that he is able to point to at the end of his first year, you know, just completely demolishes the idea he is not up for the job or his administration is some kind of a you know, gang of clowns. you know, yes, people inside might complain here and there, but that is not what people will care about in the next election. they will care about the record, the record so far looks pretty good. neil: very scant attention to that record. if a book been written like this so early into the obama administration, whether people deemed it to be accurate or not, would it have gotten anywhere near this coverage? >> if it got coverage at all it would have been antagonistic coverage. it would have been the media pushing back. there was a book that came out in the obama years. it was later on but defense secretary robert gates had a few critical things to say about president obama in largely flattering book but the media, because of his stature pushed back on everything he said they thought was not flattering about president obama. that was the media playing defense for a president they like. here it is media taking elements of a story that they, about a president they don't like, taking most insulting things, giving it vast traction. at end of the day it will build sort of lower the bar for president trump. he will step over it pretty easily. and look better as a result, not worse. neil: this is among the reasons why rich, you and i talked about this before, the president shouldn't even engauge in that debate. should ignore the book. ignore michael wolff. ignore media fixation and do what he was doing yesterday. >> no, he be building the record that people look to in election day, that is why we liked the guy, what we voted for in the first place. it is getting in the tit-for-tat with these people that i think brings him down and causes anxiety on part of supporters. the meeting yesterday was something that you know, showed him in command. he exceeded the caricature. abc has sort of a snarky story how it was proving he wasn't as dim-witted as the book made him out to be. on other hand he did do that. it was mission accomplished. neil: amazing. amazing. rich, thank you very, very much. lot more after this. dow down 19 points. we were off more than 100. stay with us. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. neil: he was treated like a rock star at that meeting yesterday with prominent republican and democratic senators and congressman. virginia republican congressman bob goodlatte unveiling his own immigration bill. congressman, very good having you, i apologize for my voice. >> neil, you have my sympathy. neil: yeah, right. the president is looking forward what you will come up with. >> the president will introduce the bill. this is what the president will be looking for. we worked very closely with the administration, with many people here in the congress as well, to come up with something that is balanced, that addresses the need to have a permanent daca program instead of the haphazard unconstitutional thing that president obama created. president trump asked for that. but he also asked for securing our borders, making sure that we end chain migration and eliminating the horrific visa lottery program. all of that is in our bill and more. so we're excited about the fact that the president views this legislation as the place to start in addressing this most important problem. neil: conservatives are concerned, sir, that the president is getting sort of co-opted by dems on this what do you say? >> i think the most important thing is provide him what he has asked for. by the way even the speaker of the house says we have to have legislation that solves the daca problem and make sure it doesn't happen again. that is what this legislation does. securing the border. making sure we have proper interior enforcement, cracking down on sanctuary cities. this includes "kate's law." it cracks down on gang violence, lots of other measures like that. we think that is what the american people want to see, and they're fair. they know that people who have been brought here at a young age, even if illegally by their parents, they should have the opportunity to stay as long as they're law-abiding themselves, and, are not members of gangs or engaged in criminal activity, things like that. >> congressman, we're going to the president right now at the white house. just coming in. >> nice to have you. want to close the door when they're finished, please? good morning and welcome to our first cabinet meeting of the new year. 2017 was a year of tremendous achievement, monumental achievement, actually. i don't think any administration has ever done, has done what we've done and what we've accomplished in its first year. which is not quite finished yet. you never know what will happen over the next few days. the achievements of our country, our people and for our standing in the world have been very monumental. we confirmed an incredible new supreme court justice, and more circuit court judges in our first year than any administration in the history of our country, and we have many more coming. we set a new record on reducing regulation and all forms of stopping growth and stopping jobs that were crippling america's economy. again the records that we set, 22 to one nobody has ever come closes and the amount of regulations we have cut is also a record in our country's history as reported by many newspapers, in particular "the wall street journal" did a big story on it. and before christmas we passed the largest tax cut and reform in american history, including anwr and including the fact that the individual mandate was terminated which is a tremendously important thing, very popular thing, i must tell you. people are supposed to pay for the privilege of not having health care. that was not good. unfortunately the courts didn't cut it but we cut it. so in addition to the largest tax cut and reform in history, we have one of the great oil sites that has now been approved. they have been trying to approve anwr, i don't know if people know this, for over 40 years. ronald reagan tried to get it approved for exploration and for drilling and for 40 years they have been trying to get i approved. that was in the bill, and the individual mandate in the bill. since that tax cut was enact the more than one million workers already received a tax cut bonus. something that frankly nobody even thought b we didn't think about it. nobody thought about it. we just knew a lot of good things were going to happen. i must say at&t was the first one and they did it, $1000 per employee. there are hundreds of thousands of employees. many companies followed immediately after. now they're following i guess, the employees are saying, what about us? millions of employees in this country are getting thousand dollars and more in some cases tax bonuses because of the tax cuts. hard-working american families will receive tremendous tax relief. we lowered our tax rates, nearly doubled the standard deduction, and doubled the child tax credit, which ivanka trump was pushing very, very hard, i will tell you that and so was marco rubio and, i will tell you that the republican senate, we had no democrat support, zero. they didn't want tax cuts. they want tax increases. they want to raise your taxes, they don't want to cut your taxes. but the child tax credit has become very important to the american family and very happy about it. our historic reductions to the business tax will raise annual household income by an average of $4,000. that's a tremendous number. the amount of money that is going to be brought in, we think it is going to be close to $4 trillion, because of our tax reform. it will be a number that this country has never seen pour into our country that will create more jobs and more investment. the stock market is shattering one record after another. unemployment is at a 17-year low. i'm very proud of this. african-american unemployment has reached its lowest level in history. think of that. and on the campaign trail remember i said, and would constantly say, what do you have to lose? meaning what do you have to lose if you vote for trump? and now it was just reported african-american unemployment is at its lowest level in history. i'm very proud of that. we're also making america safe again. yesterday we had a bipartisan meeting with house members and senators on immigration reform, something that they have been talking about for many, many years. but we brought them together in this room, and it was a tremendous meeting. actually, it was reported as incredibly good. my performance, you know, some of them called it a performance. i considered it work it got great reviews other than two networks who were phenomenal for two hours. after that they were called by their bosses, wait a minute. unfortunately a lot of those anchors sent us letters saying that was one of the greatest meetings they have ever witnessed, and they were great for about two hours. they were phenomenal. and then they went a little bit south on us but not that bad. it was fine. they probably wished they didn't send us those letters of congratulations but it was good. i'm sure their ratings were fantastic. they always are which is why i think the media will ultimately support trump in the end, if trump doesn't win in three years, they're all out of business. you guys will be out of business but the boom holders will still be there, so that is good. those are the people i like. we agree to pursue four major areas yesterday of reform. securing our boarder including of course the wall, which is always been included. never changed. ending chain migration, canceling the visa lottery, and addressing the status of the daca population. we want daca. it has been spoken of for years, an children are now adults i many cases the numbersre vy different, varng. lot ofeople50. ilso heard 3 million. the fact is our country was such a mess, nobody even knows what the numbers are, but we'll know what the numbers are. but above all else, any bill we passed must improve jobs, wages, and security for american citizens. the people who elected us, all of us, the people that elected us, we have to take care of them. we have to have a strong military. we can't play games with our military whether we're democrat or republican, we have to have a strong -- that is not a point of negotiation. we can't say, oh, we will give you money for military but you have to give us money for frankly something much less important than security. and we have to keep our country strong, and our military was badly depleted over the last long period of time, beyond pres say. beyond president obama. our military was very, very badly depleted. i just spoke to president moon. he is very thankful for what we've done, with talks with north korea. we'll see how that happens. he felt that the original, that the initial talk was extremely good. had a lot of good comment. rex was on the phone and nikki has been totally briefed. but we had a very good conversation. he is very thankful for what we've done and so reported today that we were the once, without our attitude that would have never happened. who knows where it leads. hopefully it will lead for success for the world, not just for our country, but for the world, and we'll be seeing over the next number of weeks and months what happens. on a separate front we'll take a close look at our libel laws. so when somebody says something false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts. if someone says something that is false and knowingly false, the person that has been abused, defamed, libeled, will have meaningful, current recourse. our current libel laws are a sham and disgrace and do not represent american values or american fairness. we'll take a strong look at that we want fairness. you can't say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. we're going to take a very, very strong look at that. and i think what the american people want to see is fairness. finally as we begin the new year, i want to thank my cabinet for working tirelessly on behalf of our country. every single day, every hour, i'm on the phone with almost all of them all the time, and we have a lot of exciting things to go. i'm just looking at alex. what a job you've done with our health care. now he's secretary of labor but he is very much involved in health care and i think those rules and regulations will be out around february 1st, alex, as i understand it. and this is health care through association, and associations, and i think that millions and millions and millions of people will be signing up. it will be highly competitive. he has been able to totally get rid of state lines so there will be tremendous competition, and that will be a phase of health care that people don't talk about but i think ultimately you will have more people than you actually had even in obamacare, and just a segment of what we're doing. so i just want to tell you, i read a lot of those papers last night. it is really great work. brilliant work. i think it is something that people don't talk about but something exciting and very great. great health care at very competitive price. there will be tremendous competition. it will cost the united states absolutely zero. thank you, alex. with that we will start the cabinet meeting. we appreciate you being here. you have gotten familiar with this room. i appreciate your nice comments yesterday. thank you all very much. [shouting questions] >> thank you very much, everybody. thank you very much, everybody. [shouting questions] >> thank you very much. neil: okay. this is not going to be like yesterday, to the point, ten minutes or so. tom done hue, the man who runs the chamber about commerce right now. tom, these venues, especially the one yesterday, changed a lot of people's impression of this president when this book is deemed to be like out to lunch and unable to focus, what do you think? >> what i try and do when we look at the white house, work with them and therefore the president is look at what they do, not what so much they say and what people say about them and when you look at what this administration has done it's very clear. we have a tax bill in a year which, by the way is pretty clearly positive. everybody else, a lot of people are saying never get done, it drops the rate, gives you a single tax, not double taxation. there is investment tax relief. total expensing and we're taking care of the middle class, it is really very good bill. the regulatory stuff, as they have cleaned up a lot of, you know previous eight years we put in more regulation. we are getting rid of a lot of that and they are pointing as the president just said on tv, they're really filling some of these judicial spots which we need to provide the business community and the american people benefit under the law. i think these kinds of things are positive and productive. on the other hand we're challenging them on a lot of the trade stuff, on nafta and we were talking a lot also about, about korea but they seem to be handling that much better now. and then sooner or later we got to go back to the pacific agreement because everyone of the other 12 countries are going ahead with that agreement and we're going to be the only ones here still paying all those tariffs. i think the people are going to get a lot smarter about the fundamental reality that 95% of the people we want to sell something top live outside of the united states and we want to sell it to them. therefore we need constructive trade agreements and because i'm saving your voice, let me just say, and the other thing i think is going on very well what we're doing about china. they're doing the investigations on steel and on all those issues and what they're looking to do is to maintain a very constructive relationship with, with a huge country, with a massive population, all kind of consumers, and a power in the world and so we have to figure out how to deal aggressively with what's going on that is wrong in trade an investment, where they steal intellectual property make companies steal their technology. we can maintain a positive relationship with china for all the global values, drive serious economic growth between us and lay the law down on how we're going to do it and we're looking forward to recognizing and respecting them by being tough. neil: are you troubled by what the chinese are threatening to do, maybe slow down, or if not stop purchase of treasurys here, maybe it is going to get nasty? >> oh, i mean, come on. they want to purchase our treasurys securities because that is the single biggest way to maintain their relationship and their influence. neil: so you don't believe them? you don't believe that threat? >> well i don't think they want to start threatening the president of the united states. i don't think they want to start threatening the united states of america. you know, there is a long history, and you read a lot of history, there is a long history of, that is not a very good idea. usually doesn't work well. and i think the chinese are smart as can be. i think they have got a very clear objective of becoming an economic power far beyond where they are, and they're not going to do it if they don't do business and have a positive relationship with the largest economy in the world. neil: tom, good seeing you. always good. i wish i could talk more. but you were far better. >> did i do a good job covering up for your voice? neil: people wanted to hear you a lot more than they did me, my friend. thank you very much. happy new year, tom donahue. >> i look forward to seeing you. thank you very much. neil: the president is talking up something called earmarks. at face value that might be scary but there could be a method to that, after this. ♪ >> i think our constitutional responsibility should lie with the entire 1.1 trillion we're about to appropriate, not just a few small dollars. normally a way to provide leverage and increase spending. i don't know that it is something that i could support. neil: even though the president seems a way to get both sides talking? >> well the president, this is not, this is one of the few things that is not the president's decision. it's a really a decision of the house. if you're going to say grease the skids by spending more money that is not what moms and dads back home told me to do. neil: all right. president wants earmarks, maybe get back to the good ol' days where people talk to one another. wonder what my next guest thinks of that. center of liberty and prosperity, dan mitchell. i was thinking of you. what do you think? >> trump is right and wrong on this issue. let me explain. he's right, he is a deal-maker. if you put earmarks back in the system you will get more deals, but here's why he's wrong. if you think, even for one second most of the legislation coming out of washington is bad are to the country, do we really want to grease the skid and make it easier for politicians to pass laws? our founding fathers gave us a system where they designed it to produce gridlock because they knew that government primary would be tempted to do bad things. no, i don't like earmarks. i think they're sort of the gateway drug to bigger spending. neil: what was he harkening back to using them for both sides to get stuff done? >> historically earmarks are used by congressional leadership and committee chairman to sort of corral and lure in members to support members of supporting pieces of legislation. that harkens back to what i just said. if you think most pieces of legislation you get out of washington are going to expand the cost, size, scope of government, the last thing we should try to do is to make it easy for politicians to pass more laws and by the way i say this with reluctance. at some point in time, assuming we want to save the country from long-run fiscal crisis, we're going to need enact entitlement reform and in that scenario if it was necessary to bribe some lawmaker with a new bridge in his district in order to get his vote for a piece of legislation that is critical for our future, then of course in that situation i would be in favor of it but when you're sort of weighing the pros and cons, nine out of 10 times if not more, when the politicians do the earmarks it will be to bribe and seduce members into supporting bad legislation. so i view this as a very unfortunate throwback to the big spending days of yore. neil: you're right a deposit on still more spending but what can they do to start to get on the same page? >> well the question is, do we want them on the same page? our founders didn't want congress and government to operate seamlessly. our fathers wanted gridlock, they wanted it difficult to pass things. why the constitution said in enumerated powers section, article i section 8, these are the only legal obligations and authorities of the central government. the courts no longer uphold that part of the constitution but congress was designed, separation of powers, two separate branches. our whole political system was designed to make it hard to pass laws. earmarks are designed to make it easy to pass laws and as i said we have to make a judgment call if you think that most laws are going to increase government power and reduce individual freedom then we don't want that even though in a few rare cases it might be convenient to be able to bribe members to supporting laws. neil: dan, thank you very much. dan mitchell. >> thank you, neil. get better. neil: thank you very much. we'll have more after this. of the then add a hotel, and save. ♪ everything you need to go. expedia we cut the price of trades to give investors even more value. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be. neil: just put it in your company name or strategy but kodak's stock is soaring. it will do something called kodak coin. starting your own cryptocurrency. that is the extent of my knowledge. deirdre bolton, connell mcshane, welcome to both of you. >> crypto connell mcshane, crypto neil cavuto. it harkens back to the dot-com feeling, right? where you could run most basic of businesses, maybe you're a florist, it actually did happen, florists.com, suddenly have a lot more investors. the idea with this, kodak is actually creating this blockchain system and there are a lot of people, and i've been kind of reading about this, a lot of artists and a lot of photographers say honestly this could eventually help to solve a big problem, if you're a photographer, sometimes your images will be used in whatever website or stock photos but nobody actually paid you. so there is an element, a positive element of ip protection, intellectual property protection for creators. >> sounds more real than that i was comparing earlier to that long island iced tea thing. >> that was actually funny. first time i read that, i thought that was a joke. oh, its not. >> exactly. so the stock goes through the roof because they renamed the company to long island iced tea. skepticking but some people come back, hey, listen if you're a photographer and way to get paid directly because of the technology in the blockchain there is a lot of potential there for other things and this may be part of it. >> that is a good distinction, because we talk about crypto, everything is dropped in in the same basket. this is more about the infrastructure, a payment infrastructure which honestly is not that different than if you have a chase account and i have a chase account and i owe you 100 bucks for doing this, i can pay you from my phone. >> that is the same thing like -- >> doughnuts. >> it could be real money too, right? >> it could. the thing that gets a little bit wooly in this, i think sort of the early version, a lot of people, so right now, if you go officially this whole blockchain stuff is actually categorized as a security, not a currency. so you might say a photographer, if i were a photographer i might say i don't really want to be paid this way, can you please give me dollars? because i can't really use this right now. i think to actually buy some of the securities on this blockchain you need to be an accredited investor. unless you're a super-famous photographer right now, you don't -- like a million dollars in cash outside the value of your home. neil: you lost me -- >> half hour ago, right? >> there is great risk to use this. for a lot of photographers, this a great idea but i can't do anything with it. neil: all right. you leave me speechless. apple is slowing down older phones, and connell, it is not denying that, is it? or is it? >> that is a revisit from the story last month when it acknowledged it is slowing down the phones. neil: now everyone -- >> it is not over yet. governments both in france where they opened up an investigation over this and here in the united states where senator john thune has gotten involved he sent a letter to tim cook, looking at it earlier from the senator's office basically saying there are more questions that have come up with because basically what apple did when it admitted its software upgrades were slowing down some of the performance in older phones, to prevent the phones shutting off randomly, a problem a lot of people reported having would do a few things about it, apparently according to some people not enough. for example, it would have replacement batteries available, instead of charging 79 bucks it would charge 29 bucks. he sent eight questions to tim cook, he said why not make them free? neil: yeah. >> one of the other questions are you doing this again with the newer phones, once the technology improves? you haven't said you won't do it again. final one, apple explored consumers paid full non-discounted price for replacement battery in effort to restore performance should be allowed to seek rebate. in other words if you paid the full price already, what happens? do you get a rebate? i don't know. neil: guys, thank you very much. connell graciously decided to bail me out, help out in the next hour. so i will see you tomorrow. connell is next. is bad, does it ever get in the way? is bad, embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to help people with moderate . . 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you've received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz today. and go to taltz.com to learn how to pay as little as $5 a month. ..rom godaddy! in fa, 68% ofn people who have but their... ...website using gocentral, did it iand you can too. build a better website - in under an hour. with gocentral from godaddy. >> welcome back, everybody, hour number two of cavuto coast to coast, i'm connell mcshane. president trump just saying that the immigration bill has to improve jobs, wealth and security in order for citizens amid the battle on capitol hill and in the courts. let's start there this hour as we continue on the theme, really an extraordinary day yesterday, covering it all for us is blake berman. >> we briefly heard from the president at the white house as opposed focused on infrastructure, but the president made comments on several topics one being immigration deal that's so close yet so far away in washington, rather, the president mentioned as you said that any bill, any deal must improve jobs, wealth and security. he also talked about this yesterday, 55 minutes on camera in which you saw the negotiations play out. democrats, republicans, the president, his staff sitting in the room and hash out the deal on both sides and the president in brief remarks off the top of the cabinet meeting said that was not a performance, rather, that was him at work. >> some of them called it a performance, i consider it work, but i have great reviews by everybody other than two networks who were phenomenal for about two hours and after that they were called by bosses and said, wait a minute and unfortunately a lot of those anchors sent us letters saying that was one of the greatest meetings they've ever witnessed. blake: and the president joked that the ratings must have been high. by the way, you know the framework for this one, connell, it's a daca fix for issues that the president wants as well. he says he wants a daca fix too but also border security, ending chain migration and reforming visa lottery program. the top democrat chuck schumer said on senate floor earlier today that they want to get this done and attach it to a spending bill so that it has to sail through. the spending bill at least the most immediate one needs to happen before next friday night and schumer's point is, let's get this done quick. >> the iron is hot, we should strike now. delay will snuff out the hope of getting an agreement that both sides with live with. blake: this has to happen before march fifth because orders that the president put in place set the deadline for that, a court out in california yesterday, though, ruled against the trump administration saying this process of unwinding daca, unwinding the protections for dreamers has to be put on hold for now. the president tweeted about it just a little while ago earlier today saying quote, it just shows how unbroken and unfair system is when opposing side on daca runs to ninth circuit and almost always wins before being reversed by higher courts. as it relates to negotiations going forward, both sides that what happened in california last night, doesn't hinder, hamper, doesn't really slow down the process of trying to get this eventually deal done. >> right, eventual deal, getting it done by the 19th is one thing, is that still being talked about realistically or pass further out than that, march fifth is the deadline? >> keep in mind, democrats have said we are not leaving in washington in december unless we get a daca fix and we all saw what happened, everybody punted this for a few weeks and all went home and here we are january 10th or whatever it is. the democrats have said this before, we have to get this done and republicans, some of them point to march fifth being the actual deadline. >> blake, always thanks, blake berman, at the white house for us. the president also has political considerations in all of this specially after yesterday's big meeting when he basically said something to the effect that if you would sign any daca agreement that was put on his desk and yet a lot of anger as of last night among conservatives in his base. let's talk about that and how he deals with that, rachel and jonah and chris bedford, welcome all three, jonah, let's start with you on this, his meeting yesterday in his estimation, at least really get great reviews. what would you say? >> well, i think it was great television, i think it was very politically smart particularly in the wake to have wolff book to sort of show him being hands on and, you know, and not being crazy that was the conversation, 25th amendment and he's going to -- he's like a run away monkey from a cocaine study. all of a sudden he was reasonable and fairly serious. i thought on the optics it was very good, politically it created a lot of problems for him even though it solves some others because he basically said, i come in here with no preconceived notions about what i want from immigration, i would like a wall but other than that, you guys, whatever you come up with is fine with me which is not the platform he ran on and it's not what biggest supporters we wanted to hear from him. >> and to that point, rachel, we heard from some of those, i guess, i would say supporters, anne coulter and there are others from the trump base on this issue that really went after the president last night on it and have continue today some extent this morning. i think he's aware of that, you can tell from the tweet last night that he needs the wall funding to be part of that but what's the effect of that backlash from the base, do you think? >> yeah, it was interesting. i was speaking with steve king who is a republican here in the house from iowa and original trump supporter, always with the president, and he was saying he was disappointed because he thought the president was getting bad aadvice -- advice from certain republicans and he was calling this amnesty, that doesn't help the president with the base, of course. the reality here is there was a lot of pleasantry exchange at the meeting but we are not closer to daca agreement now than we were before this meeting actually happened and the reason is because even though people were sort of talking nice to each other, you still had the president who wants his wall money, he also wants to talk about making changes to immigration policy to curve the amount of people who are coming through the country through chain migration or lottery visa program and democrats are weary of all three of those. there's a debate going on on capitol hill between democratic leaders and the house and the senate about how much they are willing to give but they are not anywhere near a deal at this point. >> well, it's like back to reality then, chris, to some extent, as we looked at it all yesterday, as jonah said, i thought it was great to watch, it was fascinating actually for a change to see coming out of the white house, you couldn't take your eyes off the tv but in your view did it change much, chris? >> you read a bunch of business economists and people who write about this for a living, when you do a deal both sides win usually, donald trump if you read any of the books he's put out or interviews he's given, he actually believes there's always a winner and a loser in every deal and what gets loser to the table and forces it is leverage. yesterday he did a lot of kind of kumbaya talking and agreeing with everybody in the table, but he has to know from decades in business that his only leverage on immigration reform is daca and if he surrenders that, then he will lose ability to negotiate at all. >> yeah, democrats would have no incentive to negotiate after that at all. now, you brought up the term winners and losers, i want to get you on another topic while three of you are here, it's pretty wide spreed agreement that steve bannon has been something of a loser this week, already being out of the white house, what's the effect of that and rachel, let me go to you first on capitol hill with that question? one to have plans for bannon, right, this is one of the things we were talking about and we didn't know how it would sort of play itself out is that he was going to get involved in midterms in terms of getting candidates from the bannon wing of the republican party as it was then being called to primary of the republicans, now what? >> yeah, so there's a sense that there's still going to be primaries in the republican party because the republican party is pretty divided between more trump-like populists and fiscal hawks but with bannon's downfall the outsider candidates are less of a threat of republican incumbents in capitol hill and gave candidates larger than life outside, if he was endorsing one of these guys, that president trump was sort of endorsing him without saying something, he also had alliance with the mercers who have a lot of money and could have brought money for primary challengers but now it's all gone and my republican sources on capitol hill are feeling pretty good that he's out right now. >> the thing is jonah, did we see -- did we see some sort of a big, i'm trying to look for another word other than pivot, some sort of change from the administration yesterday when you combined the davos thing, when you put it together with the immigration meeting and say, boy, i don't know if he's trying to stick it to bannon or if that part of his white house that was written so much about by michael wolff, you know, jared kushner, ivanka trump, gary cohn, that they are winning out here, do you think that's happening? >> well, symbolically it was a big deal, the deal that donald trump was going to davos and open to daca deal and other things, you would expect steve bannon to combust and part of the problem is, look, i think steve bannon had a thumbless grasp on american politics, he has unbelievably bad track record in all of the primaries backing people and ultimately -- bus his problem was that he was deeply invested in the idea that there was this thing called trumpism which was his nationalistic ideological agenda that was larger than trump himself and ultimately trump is the president of the united states, whatever he does is going to define trumpism and it's not bannon's agenda so bannon is left with basically nothing now and unhappy about it. >> the question is, chris, does trump carry the quote, unquote trumpism or is he changing too? the last point. >> i think he will, he will carry on. >> even in davos. >> he believes the reporting about him from liberal media, if charles koch you see him yelling at the sun to go down. donald trump, economic populism goes back to interviews in the 70's, he thought the united states was getting raw deal on trade and stood for himself and brand before steve bannon and roger stone and he will continue with that, i suspect, more deeply held beliefs with or without bannon's support. >> jonah, this is a news alert actually, you will have to react to it in realtime like i am, the associated press just reporting through source that is the president is expected this week to extend relief from economic sanctions to iran as part of the nuclear deal, that just came out from the associated press, jonah? >> to extend relief? >> that's exactly how it's phrased, from economic sanctions, so extend relief from economic sanctions, in other words -- >> i think it's interesting. i'd have to read more about it. it sounds like he's looking for a little bit of a breather for protests to play out. >> maybe buying himself some time, that's what i was thinking through too but given what happened yesterday and everything else whether this is some sort of a change in approach. any way, guys, thank you, appreciate it. in a moment tom about the tax plan. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. >> welcome back to cavuto coast to coast, nicole petallides live on the floor of new york stocks ebbing changes, we have been looking at a lot of records, the dow is down 5, the nasdaq composite down 20, there was some concern here on wall street as officials in china recommend slowing or halting purchases of u.s. treasuries and as those yields have been on the rise, pressured stocks, banks have done particularly well, financials telecom and energy as oil moves to three-year highs, those are areas of strength, you is see the nasdaq is to the downside as well and the tech stocks have been mixed. we are watching also the transport, dow jones transportation average which has been up every single day this year. this is the truckers, the shippers, airlines, it is the air iens keeping transport afloat today. this is as united and heard from american, they gave financial outlook, they are doing well today and helping to move transport to record highs once again. let's take a look at the fang stocks, facebook, apple, netflix, amazon, most have hit new highs recently but you can see these tech stocks are under pressure with appear lg at 173, down three quarters of 1%. alphabet down half of 1%. connell. i almost called you google. that would be a good one. >> i would want google money. that would be absolutely fine. nicole is talking about the market being down today. one of the things you see treasury yields going up. let's go to the news room for the latest on that, jerry willis. >> the question traders are asking today on both stock and bond side is the u.s. economy about to experience higher inflation, the bond market today saying, yes, take a look at the yield, as you were just talking about, the ten-year treasury, the benchmark is hitting 10-month high closing 2.5% last night for the first time since march and almost at 2.6% today and as you know, connell, lower demand for government debt drives yields higher. that's the way the market goes. the yields on the ten-year has been moving higher to 2.64%, by december 15th that was just five weeks as the president got into office as investors started betting on trump's progrowth policies but there is another factor at work and i believe it's been mentioned as well, china, the longest buyer signaling that might curb appetite for u.s. debt because of threats that trump might rewrite trade deals to disadvantage china and that's unnerve to go professional investors. such a move would dramatically curve demand for u.s. debt spiking yields further. changes to what has been a three-dade bull market for treasuries could hit individual american investors very hard. many of them who are approaching retirement despite what's happened in the stock market. bill, long-time bond guruu he tweeted this, bond bear market confirmed today, this was yesterday, 25-long term broken in 5-year and 10-year maturity treasures. most 401(k)'s offer what they call total market bond, different kinds of bonds, corporates, all kinds of things, individuals might not see big impact yet but i should tell you they're all watching and everybody is paying a lot of attention to this because it has -- could have big impacts on the economy and market, connell. >> yes, it's one of the things we will talk more in the few minutes, maybe only one of the things that could hold the stock back, rising yields. >> good point. >> breaking news a few minutes ago that ap was reporting about president trump, they say to extend this week relief from economic sanctions to iran as part of the nuclear deal, so the ap goes on, it's reporting to say that the president is also likely to pair that decision, in other words, put it together with some new sanctions against iran that would be targeted as iranian businesses, so that's something that's coming out of the associated press, adds more context to what i was talking to jonah goldberg a few minutes ago. expressing optimism about tax cuts, let's listen to part of that. >> we have a tax bill in a year which by the way is pretty clearly positive, everybody else -- a lot of people say it would never get done, it drops the rate, it gives you a single tax, not double taxation, investment tax relief, total expensing and we are taking care of the middle class. it's really very good bill. >> all right, with that, let's bring in baron senior editor john and our own charles payne, welcome to both of you, jack, let me start with you, a lot of people are and tom is one of them positive about jamie dimon about tax reform long-term specially for businesses, so to that point, i don't know if anything else holds the economy back other than rising interest rates, what do you think? >> certainly positive for businesses. i personally think it was a bit of a missed opportunity. if you really want to get economic stimulus you put more money in the hands of lower-income people. >> business tax cut -- >> we will get some growth. here is the problem, this doesn't happen in a vacuum. happens in the context of broader economy. the signs are pretty good for broad economy right now but i see early indications, i see sky-high sentiment and savings rate that's going through the floor. that to me suggests we are in the later part of an economic expansion, believe it or not, there are things in this world that are bigger and more powerful than donald trump and one of them is economic cycles. if this economy starts to cool down i'm not sure loans are good enough to pick it back up. >> remember that old question, what inning are we in, where do you think we are in this cycle, charles? >> i think the market and the economy, 1995 or 1925, we are at the very beginning of a secular wakening, 2.9% savings rate was somewhat alarming but on the other end of that, that service percentage of disposable income at all-time low and in 2008 all-time high. we have room, household to spend more money and the fact that they are using credit card is sign of confidence. >> we crashed -- >> 25, 95. right when alan greenspan said rational exuberance. i think they are wrong, but i think this is more based on factual secular sanctions on dna of our economy that will keep going for a long time. >> the larger point say, charles, where we are on the cycle, can we get to the point where if we know something is coming or something is kind of bubbling up, even if it is many years off u you know that we can put it off, do something about it or we just left with the idea that at some point not only do markets go up and go down but they come down hard? >> we've had incredibly long expansion. one of the reasons is there's been no inflation and why hasn't there been inflation? there has been on services side but has to do with amazon, variety of goods, i don't know if that goes on forever. but one thing i will tell you, charles is saying morning in america, i will be saying dinner, time to call kids from the play gunshot wound, -- playground, it's just a matter of whether we get another year and change for this expansion of stock market rally or whether we get longer than that, i think it's time to look at some of the later cycle plays for the economy, maybe some banks, maybe commodities. >> little rotation, we will watch you tonight, charles, appreciate it both of you guys. democrat henry has agreed to work with the president on immigration, did so yesterday as part of the meeting, he was there then, he's here next. we will be right back. [ phone rings ] hi, tom. hey, how's the college visit? you remembered. it's good. does it make the short list? you remembered that too. yeah, i'm afraid so. knowing what's important to you... it's okay. this is what we've been planning for. thanks, bye. that's what's important to us. it's why 7 million investors work with edward jones. >> welcome back to cavuto coast to coast as we take a look at the price of crude oil, it continues to go up today, $63 now and 33 cents per barrel, so it's up about another 37 cents and crude oil actually hit a 3-year high today, with that let me go to friends jeff and phil out in chicago, the traveling road show, that's jeff and phil, jeff flock and fill -- phil flynn at the cme. jeff: we had a big argument the last time we talked. phil: we did. that was a long time ago. jeff: this was the last argument we had about offshore drilling. i have to get you credit when you're right, you called the bottom in oil and you called where we are right now. we are trading now at 63.34, up forty cents, what did you know that other people didn't know and we were washing oil, it's only going down. >> i learn from history. you know, i've been through the bottom of many oil psych unless the past and when everybody is saying prices will never go up again, that's the time to start buying. we saw historic cutback and capital spending in the oil over trillion dollars, we have never seen that before and it's going to have ramifications in the future and low prices create demand. >> i was going to say, fewer new discoveries of oil in the past year in how many years? >> over 70 years, we stopped looking for oil, you know. jeff: we are going to have electric cars, you don't need oil for that? phil: jeff, where are you going to plug them in? if we replace chicago, every car with a tesla tomorrow, we gave them away, we would bring down the electric infrastructure, we wouldn't have the ability to charge that many cars, it would take billions of dollars of investment. jeff: gas prices, where are they going, because oil prices going up -- let's put up the numbers, we have been stable on gas prices for a long time. are we about ready to leave the stable? >> yeah, we will start moving up, but you know what, refiners are doing a better job than the past, they are not hold to go crude oil prices that they had. they have become more efficient. the other thing that's driving the prices is a great story, jeff, it's gasoline demand. i look at the gasoline demand numbers and i see economic growth, jobs, people driving the work, feeling more confident about the economy and we see that in gas prices. jeff: we still don't need offshore oil drilling. >> maybe not drill in lake michigan. >> there's oil underneath. they care about florida's tourism industry but they don't care about new jersey. >> governor perry. >> who cares about new jersey. >> in california they don't have a problem. you can -- >> i like watching you together. i don't know if you're up for suggestions, flock, but i feel like the next hurricane maybe you bring flynn with you. >> we thought about that. we could get us out into oil drilling rig. can you imagine being on a rig when everybody is wrong and it's just phil and me? >> the only important personnel that would leave you jeff, so that you would be the only guy they need there. >> flynn and flock, thank you very much. probably true. >> there you go. >> thank you very much and entertaining way to look at oil price rise. we tried to get congressman on immigration story, the other terrible story that everybody keeps talking about is california, the death toll continues to go up in mud slides, latest report live next. two, one, fadeaway. that was awful. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum -- just to help you improve your skills. boom! that's lesson one. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade. >> we can work on the other things separately on border security, listen to the folks that are from the border and -- >> you folks will have to come up with a solution, if you do, i will sign that solution. we have a lot of smart people in the room, really smart people. we have a lot of people with big hearts, they want to get it done. almost everybody, i can think of one or two i don't particularly like but that's okay. [laughter] >> i think everybody -- everybody wants -- [inaudible conversations] >> everybody wants a solution. you want it and i want it. >> all right, quite an exchange yesterday as part of extraordinary meeting in the white house, democratic texas congressman henry speaking to the president during the bipartisan meeting and the congressman from dc. what did you take the president to mean by those comments, not the joke at the end but the initial comments to you there? what was your impression of what he meant in. >> i think the president wants to come to an agreement, he wants congress to be engaged and i think the fact that he got us all together, we were able to narrow down to four issues, daca, border security u chain migration and diversity. the fact that we are able to narrow down to those four issues and say that we are going to follow up and i think tomorrow we should have a meeting, the group of 22 member that is were there, the senators and the house members u i think it'll be a good start and i think the white house is going to join us, probably the chief of staff john kelly will be with us. >> okay, you're clear going into that that those four issues is what you're talking about that all of that has to be tackled at once versus a, quote, unquote, clean daca bill that senator feinstein brought up yesterday, that's not happening, right, that's clear? >> well, i think it's clear that, you know, that we greed on those but there's still some members in that room that still want to have a clean daca bill. again u with all due respect, in a real world, practical world we are not going to do daca without border security. now, when we talk about border security, then we get into the definition of what do we mean by border security, a wall, i think there's other ways to secure the border. >> yes, but the president during the campaign had promised his supporters and will probably politically wouldn't you agree have to go to those supporters and be able to say, well, i delivered on the promise a wall, doesn't that have to be hart -- part of it, even if it's not the whole thing, address other measures, part of it allocated to build a wall, is that fair? >> it's fair to note also that the president said that méxico was going to pay for this wall, so we will support a wall if we can get méxico to pay for this wall, a lot of things are said during the campaign, i think what we need to do is look at security, you know, i live in the border, i don't just go in for a few minutes, hours, i know what works. if you look at the own border -- the border patrol chief right now and the ones we've had in the past, i want you to listen this, how much time does the wall buy you, they said, quote, a few minutes or a few seconds. if we are going to spend billions of dollars just to slow down somebody for a few minutes, i think we look -- we need to look at what the military does, they use sensors, they use cameras, a lot of ways of securing the border and i think -- i want to secure the border, i live in the border. i don't want to see an open border but we have to be smart on how we secure the border. >> the way the money is allocated and the way that it's written, the legislation, whatever you guys come up with, do you need to explicit i will say this cannot be used to build a wall or border security that's thrown out there that allows both sides to claim sort of a political victory, is that how all this ends up? >> i sat on the appropriations both on defense and homeland appropriations, the way we did last appropriation bill, the one we did in april, there was language there that x amount of dollars would be used to put some fences, repair fences in the san diego area, specific language and amount of moneys that would be used to put some gates in south texas for a fence -- for some fences that didn't have any gates, so it would have to be specifically to say, be used for this purpose, or not be used for a particular purpose. >> okay, we will see how that comes out. timeline wise before i let you go congressman, we learned at fox that the gang of 4 is putting together an afternoon meeting i believe for 3:00 o'clock this afternoon and congressman mccarthy's office, the house majority leader where it'll be cornyn and dick durman, that meeting is happening before the meeting you were talking about earlier? you wouldn't be at that, right? >> no, what we agreed on was that the four individuals will sit down and work out the time schedule and parameters for the meetings. my understanding is that tomorrow the group of 22 will get together after the top four set that -- >> a deal by the 19th, you think on daca? >> if we narrow it down to four, both sides, democrats and republicans are willing to give in, i think we can. we can least reach principals and push it on for a little further. >> congressman cuellar, we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> let me go to california where the death toll continues to rise, at least 15, fox news in m, our -- >> leveled by the river of mud and debris. you can see behind me trees, power lines, the car right there thrown around like matchbox. up there in the hills, that's where the tomas fire was last month, it stripped the hillsides of vegetation, when the rains came the first of the year, it started coming down, gathering the mud, trees, wall of wet concrete that bulldozed anything in its path. >> a few people who didn't listen to the fire department when they toldtous take every fire car off the street, those few people, their cars were like -- power line was coming down. the cars were coming down rolling. >> you could hear the -- it sounded like a freight train. >> 15 fatalities so far. the sheriff expects more. 50 were rescued by helicopter alone. many more by high-water trucks. a mud slide comes without warning, by the time you do hear it it is too late. the thomas fire burn for four weeks, we had two fatalities, the rains that created this mud slide fell in about four hours. and, of course, what accounts for that great difference in fatalities, according to sheriff, so many ignored the warnings to evacuate. >> we have history of flooding in the area but with the fire, the ash and then little to no vegetation, the -- clogs the streams and that adds to the problem. >> so according to geological survey, as little as 3-inches of mud can topple a truck. you can see what we are looking at here is a heck of a lot more than that. i will send it back to you. >> man, it happened so fast, william, thank you very much, we will go back to the world of business where we have another piece of news coming in. there's a battle brewing apparently between two former heads you see here of the company general electric, two very well known gentlemen in the business world and charlie gasparino joins us from the news room. what are you hearing, charlie. >> josh welsh and jeff immelt. jack spent 30 years in ge and immelt 16. this is where it gets pretty interesting between the two guys, you don't hear much about jack welsh but you hear privately that ge is holding immelt personally for the company's lows, at the top of the list of ge executives who are privately growing about mr. immelt's rein, he told people he made a mistake, pointing immelt as ceo and the other two guys, jim, long-time ge executive, bob, would have been a lot better. i am going to have a full write-up on fox business.com in the next hour or so, this is pretty interesting, welsh and immelt have no comment on this little private feud behind the scenes, welsh, a spokesman -- immelt placed a phone call to welsh right before he announced retirement in june, they haven't spoken since. the interesting thing is this, if these former ge executives and i hear they are talking to board members, including representative, ed gardner, if they prod the company to do -- to be much more active in maybe laying off people, in taking a different corporate direction, that's where that could get interesting and dismantling the company that immelt created and we should point out that john flannery, the new jon was an associate of mr. immelt. this is really interesting. behind the scenes, you don't see it come out that much often and it could have a real impact on the company going forward. >> that's the point, immelt guy in there. charley, we will look for more on the website. charlie, thank you. the president saying about the u.s. and north korea opening lines of possible communication, we are going to talk about what that all means up next >> okay, we are back here to talk about north korea a little bit. president trump had a conversation with the leader of south korea and from the read-out we got of the conversation apparently said he's open to talks with north korea under the, quote, right circumstances. former commander of the middle east during iraq war retired general anthony joins us now. what do you make of that, general, should we be open to those types of conversations? >> i think so. i mean u but i think it has to be understood that the talks have to deal with the nuclear issue, that can't be off the table. i think it's fine that south korea may be talking about olympics and maybe family visits. i think president moon did an excellent job in putting these talks in perspective. he said that he doesn't believe that kim jong un would be there if it wasn't for the president's strong stand and that the real issue is the nuclearization and that has to be addressed and talk that is were more serious than what's going on now. he also mentioned the strength of the alliance between the u.s. and south korea. these talks that are ongoing are put in perspective very clearly by president moon and we can't be participating in anything that doesn't really deal with the key issue. >> speaking of putting things in perspective, this does put it in a perspective of how the president, our president, president trump, handles things on -- in terms of policy rather than how he talks about things either publicly or more often on twitter. when he's going on twitter and bragging about who has the bigger button, people are saying, boy, what are we getting ourselves into here, what do you make of how he has actually handled the situation policy wise, today's pronouncement seems quite different than that? >> i think the policy has been handled in an excellent way. you know, i think it's been made clear that we have military options and quite a range of military options. i think it's clear where we see the red lines and what's not acceptable, i think the president has made that quite clear and secretary mat ris and secretary tillerson, and i think we have done a lot to ensure that it's clear to north korea that our allies in the region, japan, south korea and others are with us and behind us in this position. >> are things getting better, is there any legitimate -- you brought up the olympics agreement, north and south and north korea will send delegation to south korean olympics, hard liners who looked at that, the foreign policy community saying it's nonsense and propaganda on the part and trying to buy themselves time the north koreans until after olympics when others said maybe it's a legitimate sign of better times to come, what do you think? >> i'm pessimistic. i really think it was done in order to try to drive a wedge maybe between us and our south korean allies which obviously is not going to work. maybe done so that kim jong un looks like he's willing to talk seriously even though these talks aren't about really what the issue is. so i don't think these talks are designed to lead to anything. i think they are fine in terms of south korea. there are other issues that they have, again, family visits, maybe reducing tensions and that sort of thing, but the idea that this could lead to something more serious, i don't see that right now. >> but we could to the president's point have talks at some level between american officials and north korean officials, what would it take to actually get us to that point? >> well, i think they have to be willing to put their nuclear capability on the table. i mean, that has to be the principal issue. i also think that when we talk about north korea talking to the united states, remember that the command in south korea is united nations command. that's the command that fought the korean war and i think we should ensure that this is an international issue, not just an issue that plays into kim jong un's hands, that he wants us to -- >> general. >> korea and u.s. >> we do have to go because of time. thank you very much, we will be right back. >> sure. (snap) achoo! achoo! feel a cold coming on? zicam cold remedy nasal swabs shorten colds with a snap, and reduce symptom severity by 45%. shorten your cold with a snap, with zicam. pier. . . okay, i picked out my dream car. now's the really fun part. choosing the color, the wheels, the interior, everything exactly how i want it. here's the thing: just because i configured this car online doesn't mean it really exists at a dealership, but with truecar, i get real pricing on actual cars in my area. i see what others paid for them, and they show me the ones that match the car i want, so i know i can go to a truecar-certified dealer and it'll be right there waiting for me... today, right now. this is truecar. connell: one thing to watch at the white house prime minister much norway is in town and she will meet with president trump. the two we'll have a joint news conference we'll cover in hour, little more than that. that is something to look forward to this afternoon. to look forward to trite now, trish regan. trish: thank you, connell. president's trump agenda is infrastructure. he sat down with the cabinet members a short time ago to come up with a plan to fix our crumbling infrastructure here in the united states of america. this meeting took place 24 hours after that major bipartisan meeting we got to watch in real time on immigration yesterday as we're seeing a wild day, choppy day on wall street. the dow was actually down triple digits around 10:00 a.m. that was the low of the session. what do you know we climb back,

Related Keywords

Norway , New York , United States , Japan , Alabama , Texas , Iran , Washington , Florida , China , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , California , San Diego , Virginia , Togo , Iraq , New Jersey , Iowa , North Korea , South Korea , Capitol Hill , France , Chicago , Illinois , America , Chinese , South Korean , American , Korea , Charlie Josh Welsh , Ronald Reagan , Jeff Immelt Jack , Kim Jongun , Dan Mitchell , Connell Mcshane , Anne Coulter , Tim Cook , Edward Jones , Trish Regan , Neil , Oprah Winfrey , Michael Wolff , Deirdre Bolton , Nikki Haley , Truecar Connell , Alan Greenspan , Jared Kushner , Charles Payne , Tom Donahue , Patrice , Kim Jong , Bannon Neil , Gary Cohn , Steve Bannon , Chris Bedford , Wilbur Ross ,