Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Warren Buffet: I Could End The Deficit In 5 Minutes

Recs

39

July 10, 2011 – Comments (15)

 

Warren Buffet: I Could End The Deficit In 5 Minutes
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffet-deficit-jobs-report-2011-7#ixzz1RjmPVdRk 











 

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM, abitare (57.55) wrote:

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffet-deficit-jobs-report-2011-7#ixzz1RjzZjgpX

Report this comment
#2) On July 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM, amassafortune (29.61) wrote:

One step beyond Warren's logic - If you find yourself borrowing from federal retirement accounts because your political leadership could not make difficult decisions before all normal limits and revenue sources were exceeded, you are not triple A. 

This would be like a private sector person taking birthday cash from their kid's drawer to pay a bill and still thinking they deserve their 785 credit score because the bills got paid. The source of funds is always relevent to credit scores and ratings, even if all payments are current. 

AAA is for borrowers who comfortably, historically, and are likely to service their debt going forward via normal operations and sources of revenue.    

Report this comment
#3) On July 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM, TheDumbMoney (43.82) wrote:

I love that.  Buffet and Munger are so big on incentives.  Buffett's proposal would totally change the incentive structure for politicians.

Report this comment
#4) On July 10, 2011 at 9:11 PM, richardrollo (< 20) wrote:

Well, just more evidence that  government is clearly not Buffett's strong suite.  He would pass a law saying that a sitting Congress couldn't run for reelection if the deficit was more than 3 per cent?  There is a  problem here called the Constitution.  Article 1 says  who gets to pass laws and who gets to judge the qualifications of its members.  Who you ask? The Congress.   That interview didn't end any too soon, he was getting sillier by the minute. 

Report this comment
#5) On July 11, 2011 at 2:30 AM, FleaBagger (29.00) wrote:

If richardrollo is saying you'd have to amend the Constitution, I'm inclined to agree. But then again, if enough of us want it, it will happen.

Report this comment
#6) On July 11, 2011 at 8:37 AM, DaveMarcus82 (30.64) wrote:

@ #3, my thoughts exactly. As it is right now, there's nothing stopping politicians in search of the popular vote from devastating our economy long term. 

Leave it to Buffett. 

Report this comment
#7) On July 11, 2011 at 11:48 AM, HooDaHeckNose (95.56) wrote:

"Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns" (something like that)

Sadly, Mr. Buffet has moved beyond his rational years. I cannot pay much attention to anything he says anymore (and I think there are much better places for my investment money than BRK)

Report this comment
#8) On July 11, 2011 at 11:54 AM, TMFBlacknGold (98.74) wrote:

@#7 

Why do you disagree with that? Kodak was very profitable at one point. So was AOL. Where are they today? Seems pretty rational to me.

Report this comment
#9) On July 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

I usually dislike Buffet's attempts to get political, but he's pretty much 100% right on this time.

Report this comment
#10) On July 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, richardrollo (< 20) wrote:

What makes this comment silly is that it will never happen.  The people who have run up this monster are there forever precisely because they bring home the bacon for those they represent at the expense of everyone else.  These are the very same people Buffett endorses and supports.  He was just blowin' smoke and you could tell that the young lady interviewing him was not fooled by him at all.  Buffett also looked to me in the interview like he was fortifying his Cherry Cokes with more than a little 100 proof additive. 

 

Report this comment
#11) On July 11, 2011 at 1:32 PM, TheDumbMoney (43.82) wrote:

You people are silly.  A) it was a flippant comment, half a joke; B) it would work; it was a clever jab at the current incentives of Congress, which are to punt on big issues and try to get reelected; C) he never implied HE would do it -- obviously he is saying that if that were the law (passed by Congress) the incentives would change; D) it would not be unconstitutional for Congress to pass such a law -- there is nothing in the constitution that states how long congressmen may serve.  Yeesh.  Get a life.

Report this comment
#12) On July 11, 2011 at 2:13 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Well, just more evidence that  government is clearly not Buffett's strong suite.  He would pass a law saying that a sitting Congress couldn't run for reelection if the deficit was more than 3 per cent?  There is a  problem here called the Constitution.  Article 1 says  who gets to pass laws and who gets to judge the qualifications of its members.  Who you ask? The Congress.   That interview didn't end any too soon, he was getting sillier by the minute. 

 

It's not that silly, really.  

It's true that Congress would be able to repeal its own law.  But, at least there would be consequences associated with that.  Imagine how brutal the press would be if Congress repealed its own law on re-elections, simply because they failed to meet their own standards on a balanced budget. 

Of course, the hyper-active Federal courts might strike down the law.  I believe they've taken a negative view on term limits, as well, even though it's quite preposterous to suggest that Congress isn't allowed to regulate its own term requirements because people have a right to 'elect people forever.' 

Report this comment
#13) On July 11, 2011 at 3:12 PM, richardrollo (< 20) wrote:

@dumberthanafool

A) exactly B) what never happens will never work. C) No he didn't imply it, he said it:  "I would pass a bill....."  That is an exact quote. D) term limits would require a constitutional amendment. Article 1 specifies qualifications for office and while the Congress has the power to regulate its members, the courts have ruled that those rules cannot abridge fundamental rights (the case involved  Adam Clayton Powell.)

 What irks me is that Buffett was being both silly and dishonest.  The administration is holding out for higher spending and higher taxes.  The congressional negotiators are holding out for lower spending.   Everyone knows this, including the young lady interviewing Buffett. 

When Buffett endorsed Ahnuld for Governor during the California recall, he nearly torpedoed Ahnuld's candidacy with his endorsement announcement.  It's just hard to know when Buffett is playing the fool or being a fool.  But, more often than not when  he opens his mouth about politics  he seems to be a fool.

My life is good.

 

Report this comment
#14) On July 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, jasenj1 (34.71) wrote:

A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. 
Alexis de Tocqueville 

 The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. 

Alexis de Tocqueville

Congress has been bribing us (and been bribed by those who fill their re-election coffers) for so long that they cannot fathom actually reducing spending and turning down the Federal money spigot.

Report this comment
#15) On January 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, GreyReaver (< 20) wrote:

Please sign my petition to End the deficit! If the US deficit exceeds 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress become ineligible for re-election

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling: "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Pressure your Representatives & demand they make it happen today!

http://wh.gov/E8mh

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement