Warren Buffett's debt solution

[Ranger2]

No, I'm not talking about his comment on taxes

A few weeks ago Warren Buffett proposed an idea to solve the problem of our growing debt:
-If debt grows to 3% more than our GDP, all members of Congress are uneligible for re-election-

Given how our Congress works in such a self-serving way, this would be a perfect law. It sounds cynical and humorous but I think it would really work. The reason Congress spends so much is because it's popular. Too many people want spending cut, but want their benefits to remain. They want someone else's spending cut. Unfortunately, since there is no such thing as "useless spending," Congressmen fail to make the tough but right decisions because it would cost them re-election.

What do you think?

[adrshepard]

At 8/30/11 01:43 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

A few weeks ago Warren Buffett proposed an idea to solve the problem of our growing debt:
-If debt grows to 3% more than our GDP, all members of Congress are uneligible for re-election-...

What do you think?

Why stop there? Why don't we just get rid of representative government entirely? Politicians can't make the "right" decisions, and people are apparently too stupid to elect capable men to office, so let's just put all the power into the hands of one trustworthy, capable person who can do everything. Like Warren Buffet.

This is the logical result, and why he was joking when he said it.

[All-American-Badass]

or how about if Congress can't make a budget that reduces deficit we cut their salary by 10%. I think they're paid too much as it is.

[aviewaskewed]

Or, you know, you could have a proviso put into the Constitution similar to the proviso that exists in many state Constitutions (like NJ for instance) that requires any budget to be balanced before it can be passed. Of course the problem there is that you have to close loopholes on things like bonds and borrowing to get the current budgets passed, but pass the pain on down the road. Something that states like NJ have done to "cheat" the balanced budget clause.

[gumOnShoe]

If congress is a rotating door than the eventually it just becomes a stepping stone to another job. Mandatory turn over generally doesn't lead to better legislation wherever its been put in place.

More to the point, is it conceivable that there might be a time when raising the debt is good, important or necessary?

Imagine trying to fight WII without debt spending. Yeah good luck.

Warren Buffet might be good at making a fortune, that doesn't mean he's good at governing. It means he's good at being a parasite.

[Iron-Hampster]

A bill like that would be a great idea! lets see if we can run that through congress right now- oh shoot.

[BUTANE]

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.

Well I disagree. Members of congress are voted in at different times. If a law like this were passed, members of a particular political party could hold out and refuse to put in place policies that would eliminate the debt during an election year where the majority of the rival party would otherwise have been up for re-election. And that could be pretty harmful to many things.

Plus, many good congressmen and women may put forth practical solution to lowering the debt, but due to a block in the house or senate by unreasonable individuals, everyone would be punished. No, that's not a good idea. I'm guessing Buffet was putting forth a casual and hypothetical solution in order to point out how the only thing people in congress care about at the end of the day is their own behinds (which for many is true, but not all).

[SadisticMonkey]

At 8/30/11 09:29 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: More to the point, is it conceivable that there might be a time when raising the debt is good, important or necessary?

apart from defensive war, no.

Imagine trying to fight WII without debt spending. Yeah good luck.

The obvious solution would be to allow for debt if (and only if) congress declares war.

[gumOnShoe]

At 8/31/11 02:05 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 8/30/11 09:29 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: More to the point, is it conceivable that there might be a time when raising the debt is good, important or necessary?

apart from defensive war, no.

Imagine trying to fight WII without debt spending. Yeah good luck.

The obvious solution would be to allow for debt if (and only if) congress declares war.

Unfortunately, other people than you & I declare war. And all we need is another Bush to declare a War on some inane idea he can't hope to fight and we're back to deficit spending. Hell, at that point you might just be telling congress that it should be continually at war. Because if it isn't, there's a good chance they're all going to get fired.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 8/31/11 08:05 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Unfortunately, other people than you & I declare war. And all we need is another Bush to declare a War on some inane idea he can't hope to fight and we're back to deficit spending.

Congress hasn't declared war since world war 2

[adrshepard]

At 8/31/11 08:05 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: And all we need is another Bush to declare a War on some inane idea he can't hope to fight

An "idea" didn't kill 3000 people on 9/11.

[animehater]

At 8/31/11 03:17 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 8/31/11 08:05 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: And all we need is another Bush to declare a War on some inane idea he can't hope to fight

An "idea" didn't kill 3000 people on 9/11.

That and this "Idea we can't hope to fight" has been getting it's ass kicked a bunch lately. For us at least.

[Ericho]

I think it's a bad idea because it generalizes people too much. If Congressman are ones whom you do not want re-elected, then you should simply make sure that you do not vote for them or at least not support them. Besides, you can't prove that all Congressman all responsible for something. Even if a majority are, you run the risk of eliminating those competant ones who are overshadowed by the incompetant ones.

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/31/11 08:52 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Congress hasn't declared war since world war 2

Oh rly?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 9/1/11 12:58 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/31/11 08:52 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Congress hasn't declared war since world war 2

Oh rly?

There is a difference between the authorisation of military engagement and a declaration of war.