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

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’ . . .

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/warren-buffett-s-financial-plan-to-eliminate-america-s-debt-in-5-minutes/ar-AA1Ep0uB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=697a3dfcd0144402a3b08d75f4dbb154&ei=80

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

Top | New | Old

bert199 · 51-55, M

DC politicians could care less if they don’t get paid. There’s so much corruption from NGOs and kickbacks that politicians don’t make their millions off their salaries. They make their millions off business deals. They could care less. As long as they’re still in power. I just don’t see this working except for effecting a few honest ones. Before this would work, we still have to keep taking out the trash in eliminating fraud, waste and abuse. It has to happen then we can get down to a properly functional government where something like this might actually work. It’s a good idea. In concept.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@bert199 this sounds like it should be true. but wouldn't their tax returns show "millions" in handouts from corporations and NGO's if that was true?

politicians can't even take a ride on a corporate jet to the bahamas in January without their opponents taking them to task.

bert199 · 51-55, M

@SusanInFlorida nope won’t see it. Comparing contributions, etc…

exchrist · 36-40

I’ve been saying tax increase needs to be tied to inflation for years, legislators salaries too; possibly inversely

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@exchrist california has a similar law. it limits the amount property taxes can be increased to something around the rate of inflation. popular with voters. politicians hate it.

exchrist · 36-40

@SusanInFlorida politicians hate it because then everything becomes actual budgeting no pet projects hidden in legislation And if the two are connected their (politicains’) pay increase get examined (transparency) also corruption becomes much easier to detect. Imagine having to read it before signing?

jehova · 36-40, M

@SusanInFlorida instead taxes are being used as a funding mechanism to create more debt pay for war and line politicains pockets

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

Two problems here. First is this American obsession with elevating random rich people as some sort of wise men and trusting someone who is accountable to no one to "fix" the government.

Second of all examples of various levels of government have a balanced budget rule which exists entirely for political reasons, almost always results in bankruptcies for no reason because they can't run a deficit.

This kind of thing is often pushed by people who are dishonestly pretending your paycheck and how an entire nation or state is funded operate the same way. That is objectively nonsense.

View 3 more replies »

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SusanInFlorida Op Eds are not the only source of information. This is basic logic that has born out in the real world.

Balanced budget amendments only work when times are good. If you find yourself in any kind of crisis at all it makes things worse because it handcuffs your ability to do anything about it.

For example if you have an economic downturn the only options you have are to raise taxes which tends to make economic downturns worse creating a death spiral.

Or cuts and even the IMF which has pushed austerity like a religion for decades has admitted austerity is bullshit and there is not a single case of it ever working and only makes economic issues worse.

It also interferes with monetary policy making monetary policy to impact inflation an interest rates ineffective because you cannot do any economic stimulus.

The whole thing is a mess when it hits reality.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow okay, so no link. just your intuition. thanks for your candor.

there are always economic downturns. they usually aren't solved by raising taxes on the survivors

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SusanInFlorida This is not intuition. And you are determined to remain ignorant on this subject.

Unlike you I don't pretend Op Eds are factual. So no I am not going to post a like to an opinion piece in the New York Post and pretend it is something concrete.

That is exactly the point. Balanced budget amendments only "work" when things are good and it forces bad options like raising taxes during downturns because it arbitrarily prevents leaders from using some of the most common solutions for the last 80 years. That is the entire point and you seem to have missed that entirely.

Zonuss · 46-50, M

By doing what. He alone cannot do this. He has to be inside an administrative to do such a thing.

Add a comment...