Warren on how to end the deficit in 5 minutes

Originally posted by peck420Warren Buffet is interested in protecting one person...Warren Buffet.

He is just smart enough to realize that if the US economy tanks there will be a domino effect and he will eventually lose all of his money. He would rather that the US wealthy take the hit so that his INTERNATIONAL (the bulk of his investments) investments don't have to.

What does this plan have to do with whether or not they raise taxes on the US-bound rich? This is only about Congress.

Originally posted by jtma508
Gee... did anyone even bother to question the authenticity of this alleged source?

www.snopes.com...

I didn't think so.

Just one question, did you?

MOSTLY FALSE does not equal totally false:

1. Warren Buffet DID say: "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says any time there is a deficit of more than 3% of the GDP, all sitting members of the Congress are ineligible for re-election." It's a great idea. We penalise most people who do this in their own lives, so why shouldn't we penalise our government?

2. Now, the rest of it is FALSELY stated as being from Warren. It doesn't make it more or less sound of a proposal. It's just not from Warren.

3. It's not really THE proposed 28th amendment, as in it's not official, the original viral email is asking people to pressure their politicians into making this our next amendment. Could it be the next 28th amendment? That totally depends on how many Americans become Activists FOR this specific change. Does it being official or not change the intent of the information? Not one iota.

4. Do we need Congress to get something like this voted on? No, although Congress could do it (unlikely). If we get enough states riled up enough on any given issue to get 2/3 of the state legislatures to take on the Feds, the next amendment won't need to be anything our Congress has a thing to do with. But no amendment has happened this way, yet, in the entire history of our country. With the unrest that we do have, as a nation, could we, the people, tip the scales this way? Maybe.

5. Congress cannot retire with full pay after merely serving 1 term. Snopes But what does that have to do with eliminating a pension altogether for congressmen? Why should congressman NEED a pension from the Government? The concept of Congress tenure is amusing to me because WE VOTE THESE PEOPLE IN. The closest we can come to this concept is limiting the amount of times you can be elected to the same office. With a limit of how many times you can be elected to any given office, there really would not be a need for a pension, anyway. So the true/falseness of this aspect from Snopes is full of holes, depending on why this aspect is brought up. This is solely about ending CAREER POLITICIANS ability to be what they are.

6. Congress pays social security taxes, since 1984. They had a private fund earlier than that. But while that aspect of the fuss is a bit much, it does not alleviate the issue of SS being in IN THE GENERAL FUND, which is basically what this part covers:

All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

7. This law and the whole Congressional Accountability act covers a lot of things that Congress is not supposed to be able to get away with. But just because there are laws in place doesn't mean that those laws are followed. That would require far more digging than I find worth doing.

8. And Congress is on the same heath care bill as is everyone else who doesn't have health care, unless they buy separate, or some equivalent.

Now, what is NOT covered by Snopes, in this specific article:

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

This could be having a problem with the pension plan in place, not necessarily that they aren't paying for their own pensions (which they are). If we've got to invest in a 401K, why should they have something else? That type of thing. Where they limit US citizens, they ought to limit themselves. If they cannot live by it, we shouldn't be forced to either. But that depends on how enforced the 401K actually is as the job-supported pension plan.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Not covered.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. (etc.)

Not covered.

It's a poison pill!

If congress, or any politician loses out on back-end benefits like special health care, retirement funds, plus more obvious perks like voting for their own pay raises, the politicians become that much more vulnerable to corruption.

Sure, politicians are in the pockets of lobbyists and other interests now, but, if politicians lose their perks, lobbyists, and other interests will have a bigger playing field of goodies and temptations to hook and control politicians.

The suggestion Buffet makes looks good on the surface, but, it's a poison pill. It'll only go to putting politicians even deeper in the pockets of people like Buffet.

The problem lies where money interests can influence politics. Build a firewall between business, money, special interest groups, lobbyists, and the politicians. Businesses and lobbyists still need to be heard, but, give them a place along side everyone else that has an interest or something to say. Stop special access. If oil or pharma wants something, put them in the same line with the organic farmer representing the hemp interest.
Let all the voices be heard and have their say, but, take the money, favor, and back room dealing out of it.

Originally posted by nineixLet all the voices be heard and have their say, but, take the money, favor, and back room dealing out of it.

The only way to stop this is to make it an act of treason to practice back room dealing. And enforce it. I couldn't see this flying.