tv The Kudlow Report CNBC November 25, 2013 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
earnings per share where their company is doing so much better. we have double-digit growth, but you have to make your peace with it because it's obvious that the journal of thes don't care. there's always a bull market "m" i'm jim cramer. i will see you tomorrow. >> president obama hits back at the criticism that he is getting from all sides on the iran nuclear deal. he says the critics, quote are, just talking tough. but what if they're telling the truth? we're going to look at the political, diplomatic and financial repercussions of this agreement. and what will israel do in response? by making this deal, the white house has brought the deal between the white house and jerusalem to an all-time low. will israel feel forced to defy the u.s. and strike iran on its own? and the one thing this deal is doing, it's getting the obama health care failure off the front pages, at least for now. but new revelations about the
disastrous healthcare.gov are coming to life this evening and they do not bode well for the future of the entire program. all the stories and more on the "kudlow report" starting right now. good evening. i'm michelle caruso-cabrera in tonight for larry kudlow, and this is "the kudlow report." despite continued white house optimism tonight for the new deal to curb iran's nuclear program, skeptics are not letting up, even harry reid says more sanctions may be needed instead. nbc's steve handelsman joins us now with the details. steve? >> reporter: michelle, thanks. here in washington a lot of senators in both political parties say they're ready to vote like the house already has for tougher sanctions. but president obama is asking them, and when he spoke today to israel's benjamin netanyahu, he also presumably asked the
hard-line israeli leader give me six more months to see if this new, some would say softer diplomatic approach can work to get iran to give up building the bomb. the president spoke today in san francisco. >> none of that is going to be easy. huge challenges remain. but we cannot close the door on diplomacy. and we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems. we cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. and tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it's not the right thing for our kurt. security. it's not the right thing for our security. >> so the iranians will get access to some of their cash frozen in foreign banks and get to make some money selling petrochemicals. still no sale of oil will be allowed. and in return they agree to stop production at their nuclear facilities and to open the facilities into u.n. inspectors.
barack obama fighting for presidential nomination in 2007 and 2008 said he will engage iran. he has done that. president today quoted jfk, never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate. michelle, if it works or doesn't work, team obama is insisting it can't make things worse because they say there is going to be so much surveillance, and there is certainly a willingness, michelle, here on capitol hill if this doesn't fly to slap tougher sanctions back on. >> thank you so much, steve. many thanks to you. nbc's steve handelsman. so is there reason for optimism for the negotiated deal with iran, or is this a flawed plan that will only further embolden a rogue nation? joining us a michael rubin author of the new book "dancing with the devil, the perils of engaging rogue regimes." i guess we can tell where he stands. and former assistant of defense peter brooks. gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us. mr. rubin, let me start with you. so the president says they cannot risk not trying
diplomacy. what do you say to that? >> you know, there is nothing wrong with trying diplomacy. the problem here is that this is a tremendously bad deal that leaves gaping holes in iran's capability. just for example, it doesn't touch parchin, which is according to national intelligence estimates where iran has experiments with nuclear bomb components such as nuclear weapons triggers. there should be a truth and reconciliation commitment on the part of iran to come clean on just what they have been working on. >> why can't we figure that out in the next six months? this is only an interim deal. we've heard that over and over again. and we've been told that getting to a real deal is going to be extremely difficult. why wouldn't parchin be part of that? >> well, it's a good question about why parchin couldn't be part of this as well. we're not equals. 5.4% over the past year, we had leverage. what we have done is not only to
forfeit that leverage, but create a dynamic in which we reward defiance. in six months when we won't get to a deal, when we're going to need another temporary deal, what we set is a precedent that we will pay or allow iran a cash infusion of $8 billion every six months. that's not the way to come to a conclusion. >> peter brooks, what do you say to the president who says we cannot rule out diplomacy? >> well, i would say this is deal is almost meaningless. the fact of the matter is we have signed a deal where the negotiation takes place after the deal is signed. and that's pretty risky. the really hard obstacles we have to deal with should have been dealt with up front. like we only put a small kind of a freeze on iranian nuclear program. but we haven't dealt with their capability to enrich over the long-term. and we really haven't changed their ability to break out or their trajectory to produce a build the bomb. >> can we explain this breakout term that guess used over and over again. starting from today, how long
would it take them to build a bomb? >> it usually means quickly. in other words, it is going to be a month. >> yes? >> is it going to be a month, is it going to be two months? is it going to be six months? you want to know how much time you have to figure out if they're actually moving in that direction. >> what do we know right now about their breakout capability, and has this deal done anything to slow it down? >> well, it depends on who you talk to. it's very short. some people say it might be a couple of months and we may have changed it only by weeks that we have the ability to recognize that they're moving in this direct. i don't think it changes things very much at wuhl. >> mr. rubin, how much of you think president obama was trying to change the discussion away from health care reform. do you think he felt rushed into this deal in order to change the subject? >> no. i wouldn't just blame it on the health care disaster with the website and such. because what we know is the secret diplomacy started many, many months ago before even rouhani became president.
>> why is he so committed to this? >> willing to make a deal with ahmadinejad administration. >> why do you think that is? >> why do i think that is? i think that president obama as a second term president is simply looking for a legacy. he wants to be the man who brought iran in from the cold. unfortunately, the best we're going to do is have secretary of state john kerry arrive back from geneva saying i have in my hand the piece of paper with the signature on it. it doesn't say much. >> they're going to end up with $4.2 billion in cash. senior administration officials will tell you their deficit is $36 billion. they need 60 to 70 billion in exchange. $4.2 billion isn't going to solve any of their problems which are deep in iran. >> we can quibble over numbers. some say it's 6 to $8 billion. but the fact of the matter is once you weaken the sanctions that you have worked so hard to get the international community to come together on, you may be
taking your finger out of the dike, and you may not be able to put your finger back into the dike. and the sanctions regime may completely fall apart. once you weaken a sanctions regime, people are going to want to do commerce and buy iranian oil. and once they start doing that, they're not going to want to stop. >> but let's be clear. the oil sanctions have not been lifted. >> they could be lifted in the future, that they might be able to sell petroleum in the future if they change some of these things. the european union is looking at a number of different options here. and you're right. in the short-term it may not change that much. but once you weaken that sanctions regime, it may be very difficult to once again reestablish it. >> all right. well, i'm not convinced we've done that much weakening to the sanctions regime at this point. but gentlemen, thank you so much. michael rubin and peter brooks. all right have. you been calling for bipartisanship on capitol hill? this iran deal might be just what you wished for because a big number of democrats and republicans are lining up on the same side against this plan. here now is house republican
chief deputy whip peter roskam from illinois. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> you're against this deal. tell me why. >> in a nutshell, your previous two guests encapsulated this. this is giving the iranians a benefit, and you get nothing in exchange. even if it's an imprimtur of their ability, i think this is prelude where the american sult subtles move. right now stated u.s. policy is to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power. this begins to transition into something that looks more like containment that is a very, very difficult and odd thing that doesn't end well. >> here is the dilemma that i think congress faces. and how you guys figure this out, i'm not sure. but if you push for tougher and
tougher sanctions in the wake of this, the european partners who just heard, we absolutely need them for the sanctions to work. if they see the u.s. acting in bad faith and they stop enforcing sanctions, the whole thing falls apart. and you get to an even worse position than where you started from. how do you calculate that risk? >> i think the administration has made a diplomatic effort here that is the equivalent of playing in traffic. like why in the world would you go out and create that sort of difficulty. and here is what i mean. we've got a situation where the sanctions are in place. they're clearly working. they're clearly driving the iranians to the table. and there has been a lack of ambiguity coming from congress. and as you pointed out, a congress which is really all kinds of part tan strife is ironically coming together around this issue and being very clear. it really sort of echoes back to the way the country spoke out on syria when the administration wanted to go in and bomb syria.
congress and the nation said absolutely not. this is a terrible idea. let's not move forward. >> right. but that's water under the bridge, right? he did it. we're in it. we're in it right now. and if you push for tougher sanctions and the europeans say oh, my gosh, you can't control your congress. forget it. we're trying to work dip circumstances and you're blowing it. and they start to weaken it, you end up with less than what you started, right? >> no. i don't accept that premise. >> no? >> it becomes a dangerous game for the administration to move forward without consulting congress. congress is a coequal branch of government and has a role the play in foreign affairs. when the president has a leading ally in the united states senate, that is senator schumer and senator menendez, the senator of the foreign relations committee that are having none of this, i think he's got major, major problems. >> i realize that i realize the dilemma he has set up for himself in the situation with congress, but he got you there. there you are. and the bottom line is if you
all push for even tougher sanctions and the europeans don't go along, what if the whole thing falls apart? >> well, look, think about it. the administration was coaxing the europeans. so what that tells you -- >> they were the french. the french wanted to be tougher, yeah. >> right. let's build on the french. and let's not become enablers here for a weak foreign policy and then we reflect back in months from now and say we got absolutely nothing. the iranians were given a breath. they've got billions of dollars, and they're able to move forward now with the sure knowledge that the precedent has been set that they get paid to manipulate everybody on the world stage. well ought not play that game, and we ought not enable the administration when they choose to play that game. >> sir, thank you so much for joining us tonight. we really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> white house gop deputy whip peter roskam. the iran situation is having a big financial effect also on oil. markets and the rest of them. we're going to talk about all that and the commodities markets just ahead.
and then later now we know the embarrassing truth about the healthcare.gov website. we're talking about, get this, nonexistent bidding process. they didn't bid it out. they hired one firm. they picked them. the dwindling chances of the cite is going to be even close to fully functional by the fast approaching december 1 deadline. the obama care disaster continues. don't forget, free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. "kudlow report" is coming right back.
commodities were on the move after the nuclear deal with iran was announced this weekend. as part of the deal, iran's crude oil sales cannot increase over the next six months. let's be even clearer about that. they said they weren't even reduce or be more strict about the impositions when it comes to the oil sanctions. we're going to talk more about that. but the administration is saying that they expect the situation to cost iran about $30 billion in unsold oil. meanwhile, u.s. crude oil is down about 1% since friday as investors wonder what impact these sanctions could have on the global energy market. here now to discuss barclay political strategist hall lima croft and lady and gentleman, good to have you here. so the administration keeps
saying the oil sanctions were not lifted, and therefore it's still tough for iran to sell oil. however, what a lot of people don't realize is because one little change in, this iran will actually be able to sell a lot more oil insurance. john kilduff, explain. >> reporter: if you're "exxon valdez," you to ensure your oil shipment all the way through, all the way through its process. and when it's being processed, it needs insurance. one of the latest genius aspects. ed was to take that away particularly from the european insurance houses. >> prohibiting the sale on oil. >> they couldn't go anywhere to get the insurance. they even tried to self-insure, and that didn't work out. >> om relief. >> how much more oil is that going to bring on the market? >> you look at what the iranians are doing. they're doing about 700,000. the administration is saying they won't be able to do more than a million. so right away we're talking about giving the iranians
300,000 more barrels per day that they can export. with the insurance, that potentially means they could do a million or a million one by our estimates. >> multiply that, you're getting to $30 million a day in terms of revenue. >> it's significant, yes. >> it's 304,000 barrels of oil a day. so that's equivalent to what we're producing in the texas shale play right now. >> next week opec meets. can't the saudis come in and say you know what? we're going to constrict supply to offset this and prices won't necessarily fall? >> i think opec has a big problem on its hands. i refer to it as a glut in waiting, because the iraqi production is surging. the saudis are producing about 10 million barrels a day. that's a record for them. consistently these iranian barrels come on the market, and all the u.s. shale oil that has been hitting the market displacing oil from west africa and opec for that matter, we're going to be in a sloppy situation beginning of next
year. >> you think that's true? we're going have a glut? >> one thing the saudis have going for them is libya is off the market. >> libya is a disaster. >> and the question is are we going to get libya up and going soon? probably not considering they don't have a government and they have militias running all over the place. >> detail. >> basically you can discount libya coming back in a meaningful way. and you mention iraq. some people are very concerned about iraq. 7,000 people have been killed in iraq about this year. worst security situation in five years. >> you're saying you're skeptical about the big increase out of iraq. >> hearing companies say they're starting to really evaluate how much more investment they're going to put in given the kurt challenges. >> john, i hope you're right because what would that mean for gasoline prices? >> much lower. $3, $2.50 i think in a lot of places. but also, the interesting effect is going to be particularly in europe, where they'll see a break. but they're also going to see downward pressure even more on their inflation rate. so that's going to spur the ecb to defend this inflationary scare. >> i hadn't thought about that. the head of the central bank there is worried about
deflation. >> right. >> falling prices. this would add to that for sure. >> it would absolutely add to that it's going to cut their manufacturing costs. it's going to cut their fuel cost is. >> that would be good for the economy. >> my only point, it's going to spur ecb action, more monetary easing. so that's going to help the global stock markets even further because yet another central bank joining the easing party. >> if we're just talking about 300,000 barrels a day coming on, what if the sanctions go away completely? >> then you're talking about a million barrels of oil from the irani market. >> is the market pricing that in at this point? >> i think people are getting ov overoptimistic about it. getting a million barrels of i knowian crude back on the market in the first half of 2014, very, very challenges. >> lady and gentleman, thank you so much.
[ male announcer ] at progresso, we believe the second chapter of your life should be just as bold as the first. try the new bold flavors of heart healthy soup from progresso. [ male announcer ] this december, experience the gift of true artistry and some of the best offers of the year at the lexus december to remember sales event. this is pursuit of perfection.
could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. yep, everybody knows that. well, did you know the ancient pyramids were actually a mistake? uh-oh. geico. fifteen minutes could save you...well, you know. so, if you're sleeping in your contact lenses, what you wear to bed is your business. ask about the air optix® contacts so breathable they're approved for up to 30 nights of continuous wear. serious eye problems may occur. ask your doctor and visit airoptix.com for safety information and a free one-month trial. one month until christmas. are retailers in panic mode? walmart actually chose this morning to announce that it's getting a new ceo.
what the heck is going on? cnbc's courtney reagan joins us with the details. good evening, courtney. the timing of this announcement caught people by surprise. >> it did. on first blush, it seems a little surprising the world's largest retailer would choose the busiest week of the year to announce a ceo transition. but it's not all that surprising when you understand the company. an annual november meeting of mike dugan informed the retailers board he would be retiring. the board then cast its vote for doug mcmillan, current walmart international ceo to take the helm february 21st, 2014. and duke took over on february 1, 2009. duke will be ceo through the holiday quarter and will transition mcmillan over the next couple of months just as lee scott did for him. duke will remain on as chairman for a year. most have mcmillan. mcmillan was with the company
was sam walton was still ceo. he has been trained on mr. sam message. he has expert on walmart and sam's club businesses, international, online and more. and is the youngest ceo since sam walton himself brings a little youth. >> in his 40s. 47 years old. >> all right, thank you, courtney. courtney is going to stick around. stay with us because we're going to bring in mary epner. and mary, walmart says there is nothing strange about the timing. this show they did it last time, right before thanksgiving. does that make sense to you? are you worried about walmart? >> it does. i would defer to courtney more about this because she is an expert at things like this. but no. given the circumstances and the fact that he was the ceo of the international piece makes perfect sense. so i wouldn't read anything extreme into it at this point. >> what about what kind of headwinds is walmart facing this holiday season? is it going to be a good season
for them or not? >> we're concerned about walmart this season for two reasons. number one, the core consumer at walmart. not the person who gets out of bed at three income the morning to go get the deal, but the one who lives and breathes walmart and lives paycheck to paycheck. we're concerned about that customer. and, you know, who is he or she? where is he or she working? have they gone from -- i don't want to talk about the elephant in the room. health care. we're concerned about that. and the second piece is in terms of their must-have item or items, what these customers getting out of bed at 3:00 in the morning for? and we just don't see the compelling values that we saw in previous years, particularly in relation to their competitors for this black friday weekend. >> the other -- i use amazon for nearly everything. i don't go to the store anymore. >> right. >> because i use prime.
and i think oh, it's going to arrive in a day or two. >> yes. >> the actual storefront seems to be just so much less compelling. >> and if there is no point of differentiation, and that's one of our concerns about this season is that there isn't a lot of differentiation. with the product in walmart versus other stores. so i think that's completely valid. >> mike, everything she is saying sounds pretty bad for the retail stocks. what is your assessment? >> i think i agree with mary. but i'm coming at it from a different point of view. if you good back over the past few years, retail stocks have done great. i they have way outperformed the overall market. the last five or six trading days we have kind of seen that switch. the overall markets outperformed. target didn't have a great third quarter. nordstrom didn't have a great third quarter. i'm wondering. you mentioned obama care's costs. real wages really aren't growing. i think all of these things are telling us that this isn't going to be a great holiday season for retail. risks you suggesting then a lot
of these stocks are priced for much better performance and then are at risk of really disappointing? >> i believe that. i tell you, another thing i look at is insider selling. very heavy in some of these retailers. tiffany's, macy's. so what are the insiders know that we don't? we should be seeing a good year normally, good quarter because lower gasoline prices, that's a nice tax cut, right? >> sure. >> but i think people are retrenching a little bit because of the uncertainty. like mary said, there is a lot of it about obama care. >> and do you have any issues with the secular shift towards just buying stuff online because you know it will arrive in the mail. >> a lot of them are going online. a lot of the retailers have online. >> they could capture that if they wanted to. >> absolutely. >> courtney, you hear what he is saying. >> sure. >> a lot of different analysts when it comes to stocks, are they in agreement? >> i think it's really a case by case situation. target had a misdemeanory quarter. walmart's wasn't great. macy's pretty good. i think the holiday season is going to be critical for a number of these retailers. and it's really hard to say. if you're a stock picker you,
have you to be careful of what you're looking at and the metrics you're using to evaluate. what is going to be a good bet for you. >> have you seen any good analysis on the issue that mary raises when it comes to health care premiums that folks are having to pay for the first time ever. we hear it come up a lot. it's a natural question to ask. i haven't seen any good data or analysis. >> i haven't either. walmart surveys the consumer. we always ask what are their top concerns. and jobs remains a top concern. >> okay. >> people don't feel real stable. they may have job. but the wage growth may not be great, like we talked about. they're concerned about food price, gas price, even though they're lower. still a big position of the paycheck for the walmart consumer. general uncertainty kind of lumps health care in there. but we don't exactly know there is a lot of frustrations with the websites. we know the payments are going to be due around christmas. a lot of folks don't know what to expect. >> what about the high-snend. >> the high-end continues to be quite good. although we've seen a little bit of slowdown. we've do checks in china.
we see what is meteoric growth to just modestly good, depending on the brand. so we think for this holiday season in the u.s., the brands that have been performing well will be good. but we're concerned about the back half of 2014. >> and robert frank, our wealth editor points out that the luxury goods that are going to sell well a the hard goods, the experiences, the jewelry, not so much the handbags and clothing. that's not what the high end is looking for this holiday season. >> and some great reporting how the a lot of the slowdown in sales in china may be the crackdown in corruption so you can't buy government officials watch after watch after watch. no, you laugh. but true. >> are you differentiating at all between the high-end stocks and the low end? >> i go to aero postal. >> one of those teenaged stores. >> my wife loves that store, finds great stuff there, great bargain. >> she is a teenager? >> no. but she is my leading indicator.
>> she might be one of the only one left. arrow postale has bad sales. >> the second half of the recovery has not been led by consumer spending. it's been led by capital spending. >> okay. >> we may go into that. >> that's a good indicator. ladies and gentleman, thank you so much. all right. now outage over the iran nuclear deal has pushed the obama care debacle off the front pages. but this story may bring it right back. wait until you hear how the malfunctions website came to be built by an inexperienced internet company. oh, and wait until you hear what the administration saying now about that december 1 deadline. stick with innovation. stick with power.
a new report says the obama administration realized in august that it was not equipped to handle the obama care website's technological challenges without outside help. specifically, it needed someone to build the financial management and accounting parts of the system. so it scrambled to lock in the services of novita solutions, no bids, they just handed over the deal. so is it any wonder the site is still not working properly? let's ask our guests. joining us is distinguished analyst robert booz and columnist for the salon and the
daily beast sally kohn, jim mclaughlin and paul howard of the manhattan institute. robert, let me start with you. when you hear about this situation that they realize at such a late stage they didn't have the internal capability to do this and needed to subcontract it out and did it without any competitive bidding, what do you think? >> it's no surprise. this thing was an i.t. project gone wrong from the very beginning. scope control was out. >> what does that mean, scope control? >> the ability to capture the project in all its pieces from beginning to end. then configuring the product, making sure that everything fit together, and then finally rolling it out. at the last minute, you realize that the project isn't working, go into crisis intervention mode, hire another company, and hope for the best. >> what are the chances that december 1 is a reality of when it comes to getting the thing up and rung, at least from the consumer perspective? >> limping along, probably.
effective, not likely. problems to come in january? absolutely. >> why in january? >> because that's when the billing has to take effect. the individual insurance companies will have to issue bills to the members. they will have to receive a premium subsidy. they won't necessarily know who is enrolled because of the december 23rd date. when they do get the information, it is likely to have the same kinds of problems that you see with the 834 transactions, the i.t. transactions between the feds and the individual health plans. >> if they had done a competitive bidding process, would this have been better? was the first -- was the first mistake thinking they had the internal capability to handle it on their own? >> probably. you really need a strong program management office to make sure all the pieces are fitting
together, the vendors are talking together and you have the right objectives in mind that was a problem from the very beginning. the no-bid contract is as i sid crisis intervention. >> can this thing be fixed right now? >> short-term, it's going to be a stretch. lots of people working lots of nights trying to make it work. over time, second, maybe third quarter of 2014, it's likely. >> second or third quarter. you're talking about march, april, may, june, july of next year? >> that's correct. it's going take that long to get it all figured out and working together. >> couldn't that put the entire program at risk? >> it depends on how much the politicians and the i.t. people are willing to work together to make a solution. it's certainly unlikely to be problem-free. >> mr. booz, thank you so much for joining us and giving us your insight into how all this i.t. stuff does work or doesn't work. >> thank you.
>> what do you think of this, guys? >> well, this part of what they said in testimony last week. 30 to 40% of the back-end systems for the program, paying the ensurers, making sure the ensurers got the money that make the program run are not even built yet that tells you this whole thing is heading for bumpier roads. >> at what point does the entire thing fail because it's taken so long. are we there yet? >> it depends on what your definition of fail. if your definition is things are going to keep limping along because money is going through the doors and ensurers are going to incur losses and increase premiums for next year, they're going to make healthy people even less likely to enroll, it's going to be a slow bleed. it's not going to shut down. >> the great thing about speculation is you can paint these horrific pictures, doomsday scenarios that i may or may not turn out. the website is fixable. we should bear in mind the people want to harp on the website is they want to make the
analogy wishing and hoping, if the website doesn't work, then the whole thing doesn't work, which is about as crazy as hey, there is a pothole on my way to the mall. that means everything i'm going to buy at the mall is defective. that makes no sense. to smear the whole thing. >> but are you saying all the repercussions that paul was just talking about, if as a result not enough people sign up, or they don't get the premium payments or there is such a lack of certainty about what kind of money -- >> the problems is risk pools. >> they're going to raise premiums. >> if, if, if, if, if. if that bad thing happens and if the website isn't help and if if if, there are all these kind of catastrophic sunny, but many of these have already happened, right? >> many have not. they're on track. they are saying they're on track. >> they said they were on track over the summer. >> listen, i'm not going to defend the roll-out of this website. i'm not going to defend the bo no-bid contract. they have screwed this up at every step. i think we can all agree the website is bad. they're on track saying they've
got to fix it. they have no incentive to boggle this again. they got to fix it and they know it. >> but the worst part of all this is the reason people wanted health care reform is they wanted health care to be more affordable. at the end of the day it's costing people twice as much. so much for the $2500 that the average family is going to save. the health care costs are going through the roof. that's the big problem with obama care right now. >> the latest example of obama care sticker shock, it turns out not everyone expecting to get a subsidy is going to qualify. one analysis shows in the largest cities, a good number of low income americans won't get the help that they were promised. that's because they tend to live in cities where new york city, i mean, you can make $50,000 in new york city. in most of the country that's a good salary. in new york city that means you're living with your mother and grandparents in one room in the back of the house or the back of the apartment. what about the core issue of sticker shock in general, sally?
that seems to be much more of a threat to the overall program. >> look, there have been horror stories on this one too. and a lot of them, every one shown so far has shown by journalists -- they have poked holes in them. you think it's such a bad deal, but look at how this plan is better than the crummy insurance you had before that was going to kick you off when you got sick. i personally signed up. i saved over $5,000. >> where could you live? >> new york. >> new york state is a state which already had guaranteed issues. one of the states where for sure price arrest going to go down. negative, question. >> no question. but i've gotten questions we've heard from folks getting kicked out of bad plans, but they find they're able to get more affordable and better plans. >> that's not what the american people are telling us. bay 2-1 margin they're saying obama care is make health care more expensive. that's overwhelming independents oppose obama care.
because it's making it more expensive. it's making it tougher for i'm to get their health insurance. >> i love the american people just as you do. but we're not going to quote them to actually reinforce facts. just because the american people think it makes health care more expensive doesn't mean it actually does. >> every day they're seeing their expenses going up. >> the kaiser family foundation, no critic of the obama care law has said over 50% of the people in the individual market today do not qualify for subsidies because of the arcane subsidy rules under obama care, it's capped at a certain percentage of your income. so if the insurance comes in below that percentage of your income, now it may be twice as expensive as it was before, but you're not going to get any premium subsidy. and also the president promised insurance costs are going to go down, period, end of sentence. that's not happening. there are going to be clear winners and losers. but a lot of those people who are making 40, 50, $60,000 are going to pay more. >> there are going to be clear winners and losers in the short-term. you're exactly right. in the long-term, when the quality of care goes up and the
cost of health care goes down for all of us, look, health care costs are already projected to eat up about 49% of the average family's budget in the next 20 years. so that was already on track to happen. meanwhile, we had -- >> where do you get those numbers? where do you get that number? >> that's a kaiser family. >> if i look that up right now, they're going to tell me in 20 years we're going to be spending 50% of our money on health care? >> unless i'm -- yeah. it was 50% of household income. it was skyrocketing. >> look, current numbers, but that doesn't discount the fact that people start to make choices. when individuals have to make choices, they'll do very different things. but we've taken that away and put it all in the hands of the government. >> we haven't tain anything away. >> yeah, we forced people. you will buy this. >> you're not supposed or buy a fine. you have a choice. >> what happened to the fact that once upon a time, let's forget the 14,000 people who were losing health insurance
before this, let's forget the fact that 30% of bankruptcies were caused by medical debt what about all the people who weren't insured, going to hospitals and getting unbelievably expensive care that was being passed on to us. >> you're making it sound like they're going get access to that care now. it's unlikely. >> we were all forced to pay. >> what were those ways? i would love to hear them. the republicans didn't have a plan. they didn't have a plan. >> lady and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us. we have run out of time. sally kohn, jim mclaughlin and powell howard joining us. i'm sure you're all going to be back. >> a pleasure. >> this is not going away. now, it seems like we see this disclaimer at the end of every movie. you know it. no animals were harmed during the filming of this motion picture. well, it appears there are far too many cases where that claim is completely not true. and the extent of some of the animal abuse detailed in a new report is shocking. we're going to have the details on a story that is rocking hollywood tonight. that's next. heart healthy, huh?!
you get your coffee here. you get your hair cut here. you find that certain thing you were looking for here, but actually you get so much more. when you shop at these small local businesses, you support all the things that make your community great. the money you spend here, stays here. in this place you call your neighborhood. this saturday is small business saturday. get out and shop small. the on again-off again chrysler ipo is off again. cnbc's seema mody joins us now with that story and more.
seema? >> reporter: saying the planned ipo of its chrysler unit will not happen this year. ceo sergio marchionne had said it would happen in 2013, but now fiat is look agent the first quarter of next year. according to fiat, that is dependent on market considerations and other considerations. the considerations could include a long-running dispute with the auto workers union. the uaw's health care trust 41.5% of chrysler. fiat wanted to buy the stake be, the two sides couldn't reach a deal. some think fiat is bluffing to get the uaw to sell. but today chrysler saying it would list under cgc if and when it does go public. moving on to something completely different. you've seen the movies with the caveat no animals were harmed in the make of this movie. but that may not be true. an expose in the hollywood reporter says animals were harmed. patiently the tyinger from "hive
of pi" almost drowned shooting one seen. and the monitors from the humane association looked the other way. that's according to this article. michelle, it's not just this movie. the hollywood reporter has several other examples of movies and tv shows where animals with hurt and even died on set. i think this follows into the question the relationship that hollywood has with the aaha. >> if you can't trust the association that says they're overseeing the animals. >> who can you trust, exactly. >> this really strike at people. i don't know what it is about animals, but sometimes you think people care more about animals. >> than their own kids. >> than people. exactly. >> of course. >> thanks, seema. >> you're welcome. the u.s. and israel have been the closest of allies for more than 60 years. but this new deal with iran may force the israelis to openly defy president obama, the state department and all the signatories of this nuclear pact. professor alan dershowitz says
once upon a time, an insurance clerk stumbled upon a cottage. [knock] no one was at home, but on the kitchen table sat three insurance policies. the first had lots of coverage. the second, only a little. but the third was... just right! bear: hi! yeah, we love visitors. that's why we moved to a secluded house in the middle of the wilderness. just the right coverage at just the right price. coverage checker from progressive.
israel condemning the nuclear deal reached over the weekend between iran and six world powers, including the u.s. prime minister benjamin netanyahu calling the agreement a historic mistake, saying the world has now become a much more dangerous place. the deal, iran would temporarily scale back its nuclear operations in exchange for
roughly $7 billion in sanctions relief. will this actually embolden iran's nuclear am byrnes, and has the obama administration destroyed relationship with one of our closest allies for nothing? joining us alan dershowitz. sir, a pleasure to have you here. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> answer that question. have we made a bad deal that makes the world far less safe? >> nobody knows for sure. it's certainly possible that if the deal works and if we can open diplomatic relations with iran and if we can change the nature of the iranian regime, and if we can get them voluntarily without the need for war and sanctions to dismantle a nuclear program, that would be great success. thing is a possibility that may happen. maybe a 10 or 15% possibility. on the other side, there is the heavy risk that they're really conning us, that they're fooling us, that they're just buying time, that this will increase the likelihood that they will be on the verge of getting nuclear weapons and increase the need for warfare. i put that in the 20 to 30%
range. so on balance, i think it's a bad deal, not motived by any bad intentions. no motivated by anti-israel attitudes. it's a miscalculation and it's bad negotiating tactics. >> you teach negotiations, don't you? >> well, i negotiate a lot, obviously, in my criminal cases and other cases. and i think you always should negotiate from strength. we had the iranians where we wanted them. the sanctions were really working. and the idea of reducing sanctions, and now sending a kind of yellow light maybe to china and other countries, you know, if you continue to play ball with them, maybe the economies will open. >> they give the president a grade. if you were grading him on this negotiation, what would you give him? >> thing is certainly no better than a b minus for negotiation. and that's. >> you said a d minus. a b minus? are you getting easier here on the air? >> you know, i'm getting older. it's getting a little easier. let me tell you.
harvard b minus is not particularly a good grade. >> terrible grade inflation there. >> i really do think that the risks of iran -- remember, the iranians are jumping up and down with joy. they think they have won. they think the united states has lost. their goal is to drive a wedge between the united states and israel. and they have succeeded. because as -- >> we've only given them $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief and the administration would say they got a $34 billion deficit it's not going to solve their problems. >> but what did we get in return? we got in return a stand still. not even a commitment to dismantle their nuclear program. not even an admission they are in the road to making nuclear weapons. so, you know, i think that we would have been much better off if we had taken a tougher road and demanded more in return for a little less. now, they may not have accepted that deal and the europeans may not have accepted that deal. i'm not charging bad faith against the obama administration. i just don't think it will turn out to be a good deal.
i hope i'm wrong. i hope congress now, and remember, this doesn't just divide israel and the united states. americans are deeply divided. congress is deeply divided. experts iranian and nuclear experts -- >> doesn't do what? >> i hope that the congress hangs two swords of damocles over iran, making it clear if they violate this agreement and move surreptitiously towards nuclear weapons they should authorize the president to take whatever military action is necessary. >> got it. >> and second, ratchet up the sanctions in the event no deal is made six months from now. >> what interest chances the israelis take matters into their own hands and take some kind of military action against our will? >> well, first of all, the united states has made it very clear that israel has the right to defend itself, that they can't be required to outsource the defense of their people any more than we would ever outsource of the defense of our people. president obama has said over and over again that if israel makes the decision. >> but will they? >> to defend itself, the united states will have to support that.
i hope it won't be necessary. i much prefer sanctions and diplomacy to war. but the second worse thing would be a military attack on iran. the worst thing would be to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. and i hope we can avoid that by any means necessary. >> professor, thank you so much for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. alan dershowitz. thank you so much for joining us. that's tonight's show. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. and don't worry, larry is back next weekment . ♪
♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] with five perfectly sweetened whole grains... you can't help but see the good. you can fill that box and pay one flat rate. how naughty was he? oh boy... [ male announcer ] fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex. [ male announcer ] fedex one rate. the world is changing faster than ever,
creating new opportunities for those who stand ready to seize them. in a time when the biggest risk is playing it safe, we believe outshining the competition tomorrow requires challenging your business inside and out today. at cognizant, our flexible, collaborative approach helps forward-looking companies not only run better, but run different... to give your customers every reason to keep looking for you. so if you're ready to see opportunities and see them through, we say: let's get to work. because now more than ever, the future belongs to those who challenge the present.
>> in this episode of "american greed," it's one of the largest art thefts in the united states. >> there was wall to wall art work, sculptures, paintings, prints, drawings. >> four million dollars of fine art, vanishes. >> the "rothko" was worth the most. >> "picasso" print, this is the golden egg. >> now, the thief tells all. >> you know, i looked at byron and said, "you know, "we'll either be princes "or prisoners, you know, "if this thing goes wrong." >> and later, in cleveland, a doctor is a hypocrite with a "hippocratic oath." >> what is he doing? it's a really big disgrace. >> giving painful, dangerous injections. >> oh, this is just awful. >> the multi million dollar freud scheme that ends in death. >> i lost my best friend. i lost my husband.
IN COLLECTIONSCNBC Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on