PDA

View Full Version : Did ol' Warren really say this?



George Jung
11-24-2012, 09:32 AM
Got this from 'a friend'.... generally don't much care for this, but wonder what you think?


Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "Y...ou 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 re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. 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.

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

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

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.










Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive
the message. Don't you think it's time?

George Jung
11-24-2012, 09:38 AM
I figured; couldn't find it when I ran it. I'll delete in a bit. Thanks.

Keith Wilson
11-24-2012, 09:51 AM
Here's the Snopes entry. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/buffett.asp) He really said the quote in the first paragraph, but none of the rest. And even the 3% limit is a silly idea, as i think Mr Buffet would recognize. There are times when running a bigger deficit is a good idea.

pefjr
11-24-2012, 10:21 AM
I figured; couldn't find it when I ran it. I'll delete in a bit. Thanks.Don't delete these words of gold. This is the tried and true, if Warren didn't say them, he should have.

Gerarddm
11-24-2012, 10:24 AM
LOL, Pefjr. He didn't, and shouldn't, because they are absurd.

pefjr
11-24-2012, 10:45 AM
Some in the bilge are as innocent as a three day old child.

McMike
11-24-2012, 11:23 AM
LOL, Pefjr. He didn't, and shouldn't, because they are absurd.

Why?

McMike
11-24-2012, 11:29 AM
Fake or not, mostly good ideas IMHO.


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

Raises should match the median income brackets overall raise year to year. It should be retroactive to 1970, it would be nice if they too could feel the same pain as the "working" class. I would also deduct their pay for days spent campaigning and not allow personal money to be spent on campaigns as well.

Canoez
11-24-2012, 11:53 AM
Fake or not, mostly good ideas IMHO.



Raises should match the median income brackets overall raise year to year. It should be retroactive to 1970, it would be nice if they too could feel the same pain as the "working" class. I would also deduct their pay for days spent campaigning and not allow personal money to be spent on campaigns as well.

Mike, I don't think that would impact Congresscritters income much. For many of them, congressional pay is probably not their primary source of income.

McMike
11-24-2012, 03:12 PM
Mike, I don't think that would impact Congresscritters income much. For many of them, congressional pay is probably not their primary source of income.

Good point. It would still make me feel better.

Chris Woodward
11-24-2012, 03:26 PM
Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. 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.

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

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

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.










Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

[/QUOTE}[QUOTE=pefjr;3605797]Don't delete these words of gold. This is the tried and true, if Warren didn't say them, he should have.

Indeed this is the best suggestion to our countries problems to be proposed in a long time

Keith Wilson
11-25-2012, 11:35 AM
It wouldn't help at all. It would merely ensure that an even higher percentage of those elected to Congress are independently wealthy. We have too damn many millionaires there already, and they didn't get rich on a Congressional salary.

pefjr
11-25-2012, 11:49 AM
It wouldn't help at all. It would merely ensure that an even higher percentage of those elected to Congress are independently wealthy. We have too damn many millionaires there already, and they didn't get rich on a Congressional salary.Yes, millionaires are successful people, and we shouldn't have any contact with these untouchables. We certainly don't want their success rubbing off on our Congress. Perhaps we should require a bankruptcy or two, as a prerequisite for Congress to insure that we have the experience of failure.

Keith Wilson
11-25-2012, 11:57 AM
The average net worth of Senators is about $14 million, Representatives about $6 million. The median for the population is about $80 thousand.

Do you think this is a good thing? Might it have some effect on the policies they support?

Chris Woodward
11-25-2012, 12:12 PM
It wouldn't help at all. It would merely ensure that an even higher percentage of those elected to Congress are independently wealthy. We have too damn many millionaires there already, and they didn't get rich on a Congressional salary.

I agree with most of this. Except that it would help a little and is a start. Baby steps, and long journies start with baby steps.

Along with this proposal I would like to see term limits placed upon the House of Representatives. The House was set up to be the "house of commons" in our system. The common man coming to represent his or her local populace. Make terms 4 years unstead of 2; max 3 terms.Take out the profit motive and the career tracking. The senate which is more like the house of lords is where the upper class career polititions reside. No term limits there.
If you want to run for an office other than the one that you are currently holding than resign the current office. You don't get to run for VP knowing that your job is still there if you fail.
Also take the money out of the election process. I'll believe that corperations are people when Texas executes one.

leikec
11-25-2012, 12:45 PM
We have term limits already. Congresspeople run for election every two years. Senators have to run every six years. Every four years we elect a president.

I would love to see more participation in the process from my fellow citizens. The sad fact is that Americans spend too much time griping about government and not enough time working to change things. The first step in that direction would be voting--especially in midterm elections.

Jeff C

Chris Woodward
11-25-2012, 01:10 PM
True true. However I think that 2 years is way to short a term. Most of it gets spent running for the next term

SMARTINSEN
11-25-2012, 02:58 PM
Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

This is so poorly worded that it does not even make any sense, and it is simply plain stupid ignorance. Assuming that this is referring to health care insurance, how is the Congress different than most of the rest of us where it is provided by our employer? They get the same coverage as the rest of the federal workforce.

Autonomous
11-25-2012, 05:27 PM
Talk is cheap. 'Ol Warren ought to pay up the 1 Billion in taxes his Berkshire Hathaway owes.

Keith Wilson
11-26-2012, 08:18 AM
Except that it would help a little and is a start. Baby steps, and long journeys start with baby steps.I disagree. I'm not at all sure it's progress in the right direction at all. The overwhelming majority of members of congress are in the top 1% before they run for the first time. I think this is a real problem, and I don't see how reducing the amount they are paid while serving would help at all. Consider the analogy to campaign contributions: seriously reducing the overall amount collected can give a huge advantage to those few rich enough to pay for their own campaigns.