Warren Buffet’s financial plan to eliminate the national debt . . .

[as seen on tv]

Photo above - Warren Buffet serenades his model train set on Chinese New Years. But what does he have to say about the national debt? Read below . . .

I always enjoy reading the financial advice of billionaires. Even if someone is older than Trump, Biden, and Pelosi combined. (Warren Buffet is 95.)

Warren’s budget plan IS pretty sweet: If congress can’t pass a balanced budget, immediately hold new elections. The sage of Omaha admits this would require a constitutional amendment, because none of the 100 senators and 435 house members would vote to enact a law like this. In fact, it would probably end up in the desk drawer of Senate majority leader and Speaker of the House. If you believe my assumption is wrong, please explain why.

But Buffet’s got a neat party trick included to the “you’re all fired” rule. America can pass a constitutional amendment without congress even getting a chance to vote on it at all. If enough states ratify it, the Senate and Congress (and the President) can go pound sand. Buffet’s amendment would immediately call new elections if a balance budget cannot be produced by the due date.

So far so good. This is how they handle things in Merry Olde England . . . if the F#ck around, they find out that new parliamentary elections are held. It’s a matter of law. But in England – like America – having budget eff-ups doesn’t trigger new elections either.

But there’s a problem. In England the rules are designed to ENSURE that the incumbents already in office hold onto their seats. England has 25 days to pull off the new vote. Hardly enough time for an opponent to explain his plans (or lie about them). So the blokes from Manchester, Liverpool and Luton are usually re-elected. And even if an incumbent is defeated, how happy would you be having just 25 days to uncover all the BS which their challenger has ever pulled?

And anyway, elections are expensive. The media spots. The debates. The bribes. Sheesh!

Sorry Warren . . . I have an even better idea. Instead of calling new elections, write the amendment so that DC politicians CANNOT BE PAID if there’s no balanced budget. All of them: the Senators, the House Members, the President. You folks may have shown up and sat at your desk, but you failed to do your job on time. Pay suspended until you finish it.

This probably isn’t going to matter to the mega-millionaires in Congress. But for the financial mortals (Fetterman, AOC, etc) this is going to strike like a lighting bolt. Some Senators even have a NEGATIVE net worth: Tim Scott (SC), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois). So the pressure for congress to do its job could become intense.

Of course, it’s possible that a balanced budget would be achieved with massive tax increases. Trillions and trillions. Don’t laugh. We have a congress that loves 800 military bases around the world and huge entitlements for everyone and everything. Maybe we need a second part of the amendment that says congress cannot increase taxes by more than the rate of inflation?

I’m just sayin’ . . .



Warren Buffett’s financial plan to eliminate America’s debt in 5 minutes

 

[BlueNY22]

View attachment 85912

Photo above - Warren Buffet serenades his model train set on Chinese New Years. But what does he have to say about the national debt? Read below . . .

I always enjoy reading the financial advice of billionaires. Even if someone is older than Trump, Biden, and Pelosi combined. (Warren Buffet is 95.)

Warren’s budget plan IS pretty sweet: If congress can’t pass a balanced budget, immediately hold new elections. The sage of Omaha admits this would require a constitutional amendment, because none of the 100 senators and 435 house members would vote to enact a law like this. In fact, it would probably end up in the desk drawer of Senate majority leader and Speaker of the House. If you believe my assumption is wrong, please explain why.

But Buffet’s got a neat party trick included to the “you’re all fired” rule. America can pass a constitutional amendment without congress even getting a chance to vote on it at all. If enough states ratify it, the Senate and Congress (and the President) can go pound sand. Buffet’s amendment would immediately call new elections if a balance budget cannot be produced by the due date.

So far so good. This is how they handle things in Merry Olde England . . . if the F#ck around, they find out that new parliamentary elections are held. It’s a matter of law. But in England – like America – having budget eff-ups doesn’t trigger new elections either.

But there’s a problem. In England the rules are designed to ENSURE that the incumbents already in office hold onto their seats. England has 25 days to pull off the new vote. Hardly enough time for an opponent to explain his plans (or lie about them). So the blokes from Manchester, Liverpool and Luton are usually re-elected. And even if an incumbent is defeated, how happy would you be having just 25 days to uncover all the BS which their challenger has ever pulled?

And anyway, elections are expensive. The media spots. The debates. The bribes. Sheesh!

Sorry Warren . . . I have an even better idea. Instead of calling new elections, write the amendment so that DC politicians CANNOT BE PAID if there’s no balanced budget. All of them: the Senators, the House Members, the President. You folks may have shown up and sat at your desk, but you failed to do your job on time. Pay suspended until you finish it.

This probably isn’t going to matter to the mega-millionaires in Congress. But for the financial mortals (Fetterman, AOC, etc) this is going to strike like a lighting bolt. Some Senators even have a NEGATIVE net worth: Tim Scott (SC), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois). So the pressure for congress to do its job could become intense.

Of course, it’s possible that a balanced budget would be achieved with massive tax increases. Trillions and trillions. Don’t laugh. We have a congress that loves 800 military bases around the world and huge entitlements for everyone and everything. Maybe we need a second part of the amendment that says congress cannot increase taxes by more than the rate of inflation?

I’m just sayin’ . . .



Warren Buffett’s financial plan to eliminate America’s debt in 5 minutes

I have always wanted to go one step further.

Congress spends beyond what we take in- Members of Congress and their staff are on the hook for the debt- in perpetuity.

Why should members of Congress sit in there for 20 years- enrich themselves- SPEND OUR TAX $$- retire with their millions And not have a responsibility to US ?

Nope- They go 100 Billion over Budget this year ? Great !! Divide it among all 538 Members. I'll be fair- make it 1% annual interest.

And keep adding it- generation after generation. Senator Blabberscum from Main passes away ? Great- that debt goes to their wife - kids whatever.

 

[ObamacareForever]

View attachment 85912

Photo above - Warren Buffet serenades his model train set on Chinese New Years. But what does he have to say about the national debt? Read below . . .

I always enjoy reading the financial advice of billionaires. Even if someone is older than Trump, Biden, and Pelosi combined. (Warren Buffet is 95.)

Warren’s budget plan IS pretty sweet: If congress can’t pass a balanced budget, immediately hold new elections. The sage of Omaha admits this would require a constitutional amendment, because none of the 100 senators and 435 house members would vote to enact a law like this. In fact, it would probably end up in the desk drawer of Senate majority leader and Speaker of the House. If you believe my assumption is wrong, please explain why.

But Buffet’s got a neat party trick included to the “you’re all fired” rule. America can pass a constitutional amendment without congress even getting a chance to vote on it at all. If enough states ratify it, the Senate and Congress (and the President) can go pound sand. Buffet’s amendment would immediately call new elections if a balance budget cannot be produced by the due date.

So far so good. This is how they handle things in Merry Olde England . . . if the F#ck around, they find out that new parliamentary elections are held. It’s a matter of law. But in England – like America – having budget eff-ups doesn’t trigger new elections either.

But there’s a problem. In England the rules are designed to ENSURE that the incumbents already in office hold onto their seats. England has 25 days to pull off the new vote. Hardly enough time for an opponent to explain his plans (or lie about them). So the blokes from Manchester, Liverpool and Luton are usually re-elected. And even if an incumbent is defeated, how happy would you be having just 25 days to uncover all the BS which their challenger has ever pulled?

And anyway, elections are expensive. The media spots. The debates. The bribes. Sheesh!

Sorry Warren . . . I have an even better idea. Instead of calling new elections, write the amendment so that DC politicians CANNOT BE PAID if there’s no balanced budget. All of them: the Senators, the House Members, the President. You folks may have shown up and sat at your desk, but you failed to do your job on time. Pay suspended until you finish it.

This probably isn’t going to matter to the mega-millionaires in Congress. But for the financial mortals (Fetterman, AOC, etc) this is going to strike like a lighting bolt. Some Senators even have a NEGATIVE net worth: Tim Scott (SC), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois). So the pressure for congress to do its job could become intense.

Of course, it’s possible that a balanced budget would be achieved with massive tax increases. Trillions and trillions. Don’t laugh. We have a congress that loves 800 military bases around the world and huge entitlements for everyone and everything. Maybe we need a second part of the amendment that says congress cannot increase taxes by more than the rate of inflation?

I’m just sayin’ . . .



Warren Buffett’s financial plan to eliminate America’s debt in 5 minutes

A balanced budget would be so unpopular, all incumbents would be voted out.

It would required either massive tax hikes, massive entitlement cuts, or a combination of the two. Doing those things doesn't win elections.

 

[reason10]

A balanced budget would be so unpopular, all incumbents would be voted out.

It would required either massive tax hikes, massive entitlement cuts, or a combination of the two. Doing those things doesn't win elections.

Gee! Florida has a balanced budget law. This state has no income tax. And our budget is in surplus.

Florida has the best economy in the country. The blue state shitholes engage in the exact OPPOSITE activity, which is why their budgets are BILLIONS in deficit and their economies are shit.

The country tried the massive tax hikes. That EXPANDED the budget because it tanked the economy, which resulted in less tax revenue. (Earth to idiots: a tanked economy means fewer jobs and fewer people paying taxes.)

Reagan's tax cuts DID result in an additional TRILLION DOLLARS in extra revenue by 1987. Problem is, the Democrat entitlements (which today are 73 percent of the budget) sucked all that revenue up.

Warren Buffett's income allows him to pontificate about balancing budgets, but nobody with any real sense will take him seriously. We KNOW Congress will not get rid of their food ticket from the stupid: the welfare state. '

President Trump may get us there by (a) expanding the economy to record levels (b) deporting this HUGE illegal alien population that has been sucking up WELFARE CHECKS, (c) adding work requirements to the able bodied LEECHES in the system. His tax cuts and tariffs have brought in tons of new revenue. Just gotta cut off the freeloaders and make them get off their fat asses and work for a living.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Gee! Florida has a balanced budget law. This state has no income tax. And our budget is in surplus.

Florida has the best economy in the country. The blue state shitholes engage in the exact OPPOSITE activity, which is why their budgets are BILLIONS in deficit and their economies are shit.

The country tried the massive tax hikes. That EXPANDED the budget because it tanked the economy, which resulted in less tax revenue. (Earth to idiots: a tanked economy means fewer jobs and fewer people paying taxes.)

Reagan's tax cuts DID result in an additional TRILLION DOLLARS in extra revenue by 1987. Problem is, the Democrat entitlements (which today are 73 percent of the budget) sucked all that revenue up.

Warren Buffett's income allows him to pontificate about balancing budgets, but nobody with any real sense will take him seriously. We KNOW Congress will not get rid of their food ticket from the stupid: the welfare state. '

President Trump may get us there by (a) expanding the economy to record levels (b) deporting this HUGE illegal alien population that has been sucking up WELFARE CHECKS, (c) adding work requirements to the able bodied LEECHES in the system. His tax cuts and tariffs have brought in tons of new revenue. Just gotta cut off the freeloaders and make them get off their fat asses and work for a living.

The problem is your definition of freeloaders is not tethered to reality.
Like for example all the boomers on social security. Are they freeloaders for getting a welfare check from the government?

 

[Dawg]

The problem is your definition of freeloaders is not tethered to reality.
Like for example all the boomers on social security. Are they freeloaders for getting a welfare check from the government?

One difference, those on SS paid into it their whole lives with each paycheck

 

[ObamacareForever]

One difference, those on SS paid into it their whole lives with each paycheck

Everybody's got an excuse why their ox shouldn't gored.

If you want a balanced budget you are going goring a lot of politically unpopular oxen.

 

[as seen on tv]

I have always wanted to go one step further.

Congress spends beyond what we take in- Members of Congress and their staff are on the hook for the debt- in perpetuity.

Why should members of Congress sit in there for 20 years- enrich themselves- SPEND OUR TAX $$- retire with their millions And not have a responsibility to US ?

Nope- They go 100 Billion over Budget this year ? Great !! Divide it among all 538 Members. I'll be fair- make it 1% annual interest.

And keep adding it- generation after generation. Senator Blabberscum from Main passes away ? Great- that debt goes to their wife - kids whatever.

you're not the first to suggest this. but i doubt it would deter DC politicians. they'd just file bankruptcy if the courts tried to force them to make good on this.

 

[as seen on tv]

The problem is your definition of freeloaders is not tethered to reality.
Like for example all the boomers on social security. Are they freeloaders for getting a welfare check from the government?

people collecting social security all paid into the system during their working years. they're lucky if they get their original contributions back.

and when they DO get a monthly social security check, it's 85% taxable as ordinary income. Even though it was previously taxed during the year of the contributions to the SS fund.

you can look it up.

 

[as seen on tv]

A balanced budget would be so unpopular, all incumbents would be voted out.

It would required either massive tax hikes, massive entitlement cuts, or a combination of the two. Doing those things doesn't win elections.

i agree that it would impossible to transition from "trillions in deficits" to a balanced budget in one year. Chaotic. There would need to be a phase in period (5 years) to allow for the orderly wind down of excessive military bases; bogus tax rebates on EVs, solar panels, windmills, water heaters, storm windows; federal funding dominance of public schools, etc.

 

[as seen on tv]

Gee! Florida has a balanced budget law. This state has no income tax. And our budget is in surplus.

Florida has the best economy in the country. The blue state shitholes engage in the exact OPPOSITE activity, which is why their budgets are BILLIONS in deficit and their economies are shit.

The country tried the massive tax hikes. That EXPANDED the budget because it tanked the economy, which resulted in less tax revenue. (Earth to idiots: a tanked economy means fewer jobs and fewer people paying taxes.)

Reagan's tax cuts DID result in an additional TRILLION DOLLARS in extra revenue by 1987. Problem is, the Democrat entitlements (which today are 73 percent of the budget) sucked all that revenue up.

Warren Buffett's income allows him to pontificate about balancing budgets, but nobody with any real sense will take him seriously. We KNOW Congress will not get rid of their food ticket from the stupid: the welfare state. '

President Trump may get us there by (a) expanding the economy to record levels (b) deporting this HUGE illegal alien population that has been sucking up WELFARE CHECKS, (c) adding work requirements to the able bodied LEECHES in the system. His tax cuts and tariffs have brought in tons of new revenue. Just gotta cut off the freeloaders and make them get off their fat asses and work for a living.

upvoted. thank you.

part of the reason is that Florida doesn't create it's own "fiat" currency to play games with. they can't use paper money to hide what their up to.

 

[ObamacareForever]

people collecting social security all paid into the system during their working years. they're lucky if they get their original contributions back.

and when they DO get a monthly social security check, it's 85% taxable as ordinary income. Even though it was previously taxed during the year of the contributions to the SS fund.

you can look it up.

So you would rather raise taxes than cut benefits.

 

[ObamacareForever]

i agree that it would impossible to transition from "trillions in deficits" to a balanced budget in one year. Chaotic. There would need to be a phase in period (5 years) to allow for the orderly wind down of excessive military bases; bogus tax rebates on EVs, solar panels, windmills, water heaters, storm windows; federal funding dominance of public schools, etc.

Quit being a politician, show the math you would use to balance the budget. Let's see if it works.

 

[reason10]

upvoted. thank you.

part of the reason is that Florida doesn't create it's own "fiat" currency to play games with. they can't use paper money to hide what their up to.

Actually, Florida hasn't attempted "fiat" currency (except for Disney World, who for a while was using Disney Dollars) probably because it's illegal.

 

[reason10]

i agree that it would impossible to transition from "trillions in deficits" to a balanced budget in one year. Chaotic. There would need to be a phase in period (5 years) to allow for the orderly wind down of excessive military bases; bogus tax rebates on EVs, solar panels, windmills, water heaters, storm windows; federal funding dominance of public schools, etc.

Excess military bases? Are you high on meth.
73 percent of the budget is the WELFARE STATE.

There is an excess of fat lazy bums sucking up welfare.

 

[reason10]

So you would rather raise taxes than cut benefits.

Raising taxes never worked. Clinton raised taxes on the poor and left Bush with a recession. And he DIDN'T balance the budget.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Raising taxes never worked. Clinton raised taxes on the poor and left Bush with a recession. And he DIDN'T balance the budget.

So cutting benefits isn't acceptable because "they paid in the system"

And tax increases "don't work"

So there is officially no way to balance the budget.