Warren Buffett: I could end the deficit in 5 minutes.

[Chad Feldheimer]

“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.”

https://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/...paign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)/?

 

[LogGrad98]

I like it.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

Unfortunately I doubt Congress would pass a law that would make them lose their own job.

 

[SaltyDawg]

“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.”

https://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/...paign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)/?

This guy needs to be in the White House.

 

[LogGrad98]

They won't even consider term limits, at all, so no, this will never pass.

It goes long with my idea for the presidency too. IMO most presidents get maybe 2 years to actually do something, and that is if they care about making a difference, rather than making a name only. Of their 4 year term it goes something like this:

Year 1 - kissing special interest and financial supporter ***
Year 2/3 - actually can do something outside of what they did in year 1
Year 4 - campaign and make safe decisions to get re-elected.

And in a second term it isn't alot different, other than they spend the last year campaigning for their successor.

I think the presidency should be one 6-year term, with no option for re-election. This way they spend the first year kissing their special interest and financial supporters asses, then they can spend the next 4 actually doing something, then the last year spend it campaigning for their successor.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

They won't even consider term limits, at all, so no, this will never pass.

It goes long with my idea for the presidency too. IMO most presidents get maybe 2 years to actually do something, and that is if they care about making a difference, rather than making a name only. Of their 4 year term it goes something like this:

Year 1 - kissing special interest and financial supporter ***
Year 2/3 - actually can do something outside of what they did in year 1
Year 4 - campaign and make safe decisions to get re-elected.

And in a second term it isn't alot different, other than they spend the last year campaigning for their successor.

I think the presidency should be one 6-year term, with no option for re-election. This way they spend the first year kissing their special interest and financial supporters asses, then they can spend the next 4 actually doing something, then the last year spend it campaigning for their successor.

I hate that they don't have term limits (well i guess elections are term limits per se). Hatch has been in the same position too goddamn long. I don't mind if he wanted be a legislator Be a Congressman, then a Governor or something else. But going on what 30 years as a Senator? When the max for president is 8? Doesn't make much sense.

 

[The-Joker]

I hate that they don't have term limits (well i guess elections are term limits per se). Hatch has been in the same position too goddamn long. I don't mind if he wanted be a legislator Be a Congressman, then a Governor or something else. But going on what 30 years as a Senator? When the max for president is 8? Doesn't make much sense.

Under the current system, a long termed senator has almost as much power as the president... we'll see the effects of Bennett's removal soon... I know USU is screwed, because he was the source of a lot of their federal money.

We need a total system revamp.

 

[Gameface]

I don't like the idea of term limits. We should be free to vote for the person we feel is best for the job. Term limits are a limit on voters, not politicians.

EDIT: I should rephrase that. Term limits are as much a limit on voters as they are on politicians.

 

[TroutBum]

I don't like the idea of term limits. We should be free to vote for the person we feel is best for the job. Term limits are a limit on voters, not politicians.

EDIT: I should rephrase that. Term limits are as much a limit on voters as they are on politicians.

I agree with this, 100%. If people didn't like Hatch, how did he last 30 years? That's the beauty, if you don't like it, get off your *** and go vote or get involved.

 

[sirkickyass]

I like it.

If you watch the full video, and have knowledge of Buffett, you'll realize that he's not actually saying it's a good idea. This is an offhand comment that masks that he actually refers to debt default as an inevitable "enormous disruption" if debt ceilings are not lifted.

 

[LogGrad98]

If you watch the full video, and have knowledge of Buffett, you'll realize that he's not actually saying it's a good idea. This is an offhand comment that masks that he actually refers to debt default as an inevitable "enormous disruption" if debt ceilings are not lifted.

Yes, I enjoyed the video. That is what "i like it" means. I also liked the implied idea of holding congress (and pres) accountable for running the country in that single out of context quote.

 

[PearlWatson]

I agree with this, 100%. If people didn't like Hatch, how did he last 30 years?

They knew he was on powerful committees, whereas a new senator wouldn't have that.

 

[PearlWatson]

Under the current system, a long termed senator has almost as much power as the president... we'll see the effects of Bennett's removal soon... I know USU is screwed, because he was the source of a lot of their federal money.

We need a total system revamp.

Is there a reason Lee couldn't be the same source?

 

[TroutBum]

They knew he was on powerful committees, whereas a new senator wouldn't have that.

'They'? Who is that? Again, if you don't like someone who is in office, go out and vote. If that's not enough, then get out there and knock on doors, donate, etc. Get involved and quit blaming intangibles like, 'they'. Jackhole.

 

[sktwstdfrk]

Look at how hard Rep. Weiner (no pun intended) fought against resignation. Agenda number 1 amongst a large majority, if not all, of polititians is job security and retainment.

 

[The-Joker]

Is there a reason Lee couldn't be the same source?

No. Not for another 20 years as he works his way through the committee minor leagues. Taking a long term senator out of office in exchange for someone who's the same party, but more partisan... IS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA!!!! Tea Partierz don't realize they're aren't only shooting themselves in the foot when they push a termed moderate GOP member of Congress out, they are also shooting themselves and everyone around them in the face. Even taking a termed guy out, because of a scandal, will probably have more negative effects then positive, had they left him in there.

 

[PearlWatson]

'They'? Who is that? Again, if you don't like someone who is in office, go out and vote. If that's not enough, then get out there and knock on doors, donate, etc. Get involved and quit blaming intangibles like, 'they'. Jackhole.

They=informed voters

They kept voting for him (whether they liked him or not) because he was on powerful committees that would benefit the state of Utah.

 

[PearlWatson]

No. Not for another 20 years as he works his way through the committee minor leagues. Taking a long term senator out of office in exchange for someone who's the same party, but more partisan... IS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA!!!! Tea Partierz don't realize they're aren't only shooting themselves in the foot when they push a termed moderate GOP member of Congress out, they are also shooting themselves and everyone around them in the face. Even taking a termed guy out, because of a scandal, will probably have more negative effects then positive, had they left him in there.

What's the point of having him in there any longer if he isn't voting the way his constituents want him to?...and he wasn't willing to use his committee power when the Democrats gained control of congress anyway. He was getting really arrogant to boot.

 

[The-Joker]

What's the point of having him in there any longer if he isn't voting the way his constituents want him to?...and he wasn't willing to use his committee power when the Democrats gained control of congress anyway. He was getting really arrogant to boot.

See line one of your signature again.

A congressman can provide many more things than just a present vote in the Senate. Through committee they can acquire a good deal of power, leverage, law-making ability, and favors for their state. The higher up you are in a committee, the more of these things you acquire. How high up in a committee you are is determined by years served in the committee, hence, years served in congress. I would even go as far to say, what happens in committee is far more important to the prosperity of a state than what happens on the floor.

 

[PearlWatson]

What's the point of having him in there any longer if he isn't voting the way his constituents want him to?...and he wasn't willing to use his committee power when the Democrats gained control of congress anyway. He was getting really arrogant to boot.

See line one of your signature again.

A congressman can provide many more things than just a present vote in the Senate. Through committee they can acquire a good deal of power, leverage, law-making ability, and favors for their state. The higher up you are in a committee, the more of these things you acquire. How high up in a committee you are is determined by years served in the committee, hence, years served in congress. I would even go as far to say, what happens in committee is far more important to the prosperity of a state than what happens on the floor.

It doesn't seem like you have much skill in reading comprehension or you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I agree with you last statement.