Warren Buffett's plan to end the deficit (1 Viewer)

[Dittohead not!]

Warren Buffett in Sun Valley, Idaho
CNBC
Warren Buffett in Sun Valley, Idaho
Warren Buffett says he could fix the U.S. deficit problem very quickly.


Here's his not-entirely serious (but not entirely joking either) plan, as told to Becky Quick during this morning's live interview on CNBC:


"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? (Laughs)

Now, that just might work.


source

 

[GDViking]

Even though it would work how many votes in their house and Senate do you think they would get on that bill?

 

[eohrnberger]

Now, that just might work.


source

I'd support that.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Now, that just might work.

"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? (Laughs)

source

I'd buy that for a dollar.

 

[ludin]

i thought it was a rich tax that he himself won't pay?
this guy changes his mind so often it isn't even funny.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Now, that just might work.


source

The one obvious flaw is that passing such a law would require congress to act responsibly.

 

[joG]

Now, that just might work.


source

Apriori i think it might work. But how get Congress to pass a law that take much of the pork out of the barrels?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

i thought it was a rich tax that he himself won't pay?
this guy changes his mind so often it isn't even funny.

I find it amusing that conservatives won't listen to someone who everyone acknowledges is one of the greatest financial minds alive. He's a billionaire but he's leaving all his money to charity and lives a modest life. He explained that his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. But Republicans and Trump are giving him a tax cut.

Republicans do the things in the wrong order.

They should:

1. Cut spending

2. Cut taxes

What they do:

1. Cut taxes

2. Talk about cutting spending.

Result: Massive deficits.

A. They project their tax cuts will pay for themselves by increasing growth

Result: We have a recession because recessions are like seasons, they're cyclical. Growth was overestimated and the deficit gets bigger.

That's Republican economics.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Now, that just might work.


source

The only problem I see is that if the minority party has just enough power to stop a "responsible" budget from being passed is if the minority party is just able to muster enough votes to prevent passage of the budget...the budget fails, and then the majority party's candidates all get kicked out, too. Same scenario if the two houses of Congress are divided.

But then, those in Congress are legendary when it comes to their senses of career preservation...they'd find a way around it.

 

[washunut]

Now, that just might work.


source

So he was saying that what Obama and congress did with TARP, Car bailouts and stimulus should not have been done. Or if done no one should have been back in office? Doubt it.

As the saying goes, for every hard problem there are a thousand easy answers. Most if not all are WRONG. This is a good example.

 

[ludin]

I find it amusing that conservatives won't listen to someone who everyone acknowledges is one of the greatest financial minds alive. He's a billionaire but he's leaving all his money to charity and lives a modest life. He explained that his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. But Republicans and Trump are giving him a tax cut.

Republicans do the things in the wrong order.

They should:

1. Cut spending

2. Cut taxes

What they do:

1. Cut taxes

2. Talk about cutting spending.

Result: Massive deficits.

A. They project their tax cuts will pay for themselves by increasing growth

Result: We have a recession because recessions are like seasons, they're cyclical. Growth was overestimated and the deficit gets bigger.

That's Republican economics.

When it comes to Buffett and investing I will listen all day long.
When it comes to Buffett and his tax schemes not so much.

 

[Evilroddy]

The one obvious flaw is that passing such a law would require congress to act responsibly.

A citizen driven and controlled constitutional convention to amend the constitution might get the ball rolling on Buffet's naughty idea. Or it might trigger the Second American Revolution against Mad King Don and his corporatist minions. Either way, progress!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Helix]

i've argued that a good way to solve a lot of problems would be to tie congressional salaries, PTO, and health care to the national average. i would also support requiring the president and noblemen / noblewomen to lead the troops into battle.

my guess is that our jobs would be a lot cushier and there would be fewer wars.

 

[Thumper39]

Even though it would work how many votes in their house and Senate do you think they would get on that bill?

To get it passed you would have to have a couple hundred million people call and write their reps and tell them they will be voted out if it's not passed.

Seeings as we can't even get a majority of Americans to agree on subjects which are very plainly written in the constitution I don't see them getting together and gelling them to get it done.

 

[Thumper39]

i've argued that a good way to solve a lot of problems would be to tie congressional salaries, PTO, and health care to the national average. i would also support requiring the president and noblemen / noblewomen to lead the troops into battle.

my guess is that our jobs would be a lot cushier and there would be fewer wars.

I almost wonder if that wouldn't encourage corruption.

I imagine that many people here believe that people are generally good. So they assume that people in government are generally good. Or at least mean well.

Once you learn that very few people in government are generally good you can admit that the least government is involved in anything that can be corrupted the better.

 

[Helix]

I almost wonder if that wouldn't encourage corruption.

I imagine that many people here believe that people are generally good. So they assume that people in government are generally good. Or at least mean well.

Once you learn that very few people in government are generally good you can admit that the least government is involved in anything that can be corrupted the better.

this assumes that giving for profit entities all of the power would be preferable. i used to be a libertarian, so i get where you're coming from, though.

 

[Thumper39]

this assumes that giving for profit entities all of the power would be preferable. i used to be a libertarian, so i get where you're coming from, though.

Thing I've realized about many former libertarians is they lump libertarians with anarchists and minarchist all together. You assume that I advocate giving business all the power. That is not the case.

 

[Helix]

Thing I've realized about many former libertarians is they lump libertarians with anarchists and minarchist all together. You assume that I advocate giving business all the power. That is not the case.

most libertarians support significant deregulation. after deregulation, the power will go to the next most powerful entity, which is corporate / the wealthy.

however, i don't consider libertarians to be anarchists. anarchists are either half baked 21 year olds, fools, or both.

 

[holbritter]

I find it amusing that conservatives won't listen to someone who everyone acknowledges is one of the greatest financial minds alive. He's a billionaire but he's leaving all his money to charity and lives a modest life. He explained that his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. But Republicans and Trump are giving him a tax cut.

Republicans do the things in the wrong order.

They should:

1. Cut spending

2. Cut taxes

What they do:

1. Cut taxes

2. Talk about cutting spending.

Result: Massive deficits.

A. They project their tax cuts will pay for themselves by increasing growth

Result: We have a recession because recessions are like seasons, they're cyclical. Growth was overestimated and the deficit gets bigger.

That's Republican economics.

I find it amusing that you think one poster represents all conservatives.

 

[code1211]

Now, that just might work.


source

That would definitely work since the only thing these deviant reprobates want is re-election.

However, whose going to pass the law?

 

[Thumper39]

most libertarians support significant deregulation. after deregulation, the power will go to the next most powerful entity, which is corporate / the wealthy.

however, i don't consider libertarians to be anarchists. anarchists are either half baked 21 year olds, fools, or both.

Anarchy works in concept. In concept it's a great idea. In the reality of the modern world where countries have to act on the national stage it does not.

Anyway. I hear folks say just what you said often. But what yall always fail to realize is without government backed cronyism there can be actual competition in the market. That puts the power into the consumers hands. Not into the corporations.

 

[Helix]

Anarchy works in concept. In concept it's a great idea. In the reality of the modern world where countries have to act on the national stage it does not.

Anyway. I hear folks say just what you said often. But what yall always fail to realize is without government backed cronyism there can be actual competition in the market. That puts the power into the consumers hands. Not into the corporations.

communism also works in concept and in small tribes. at the nation level, though? no.

laissez faire would result in fewer and fewer winners. capitalism eats itself if it is allowed to. read up on company towns, and then increase that by orders of magnitude.

 

[Thumper39]

communism also works in concept and in small tribes. at the nation level, though? no.

laissez faire would result in fewer and fewer winners. capitalism eats itself if it is allowed to. read up on company towns, and then increase that by orders of magnitude.

I have. There is a huge difference between cronyism and capitalism. You seem to use the word capitalism when you are really talking about cronyism.

 

[Helix]

I have. There is a huge difference between cronyism and capitalism. You seem to use the word capitalism when you are really talking about cronyism.

cronyism certainly plays a role in capitalism eating itself if it is not prevented from doing so.

 

[Thumper39]

cronyism certainly plays a role in capitalism eating itself if it is not prevented from doing so.

And cronyism is enabled by government. If they were not so deep into every aspect of the market then they could not be bought.