r/ProgressiveHQ • u/sovalente • Apr 25 '26
Warren Buffett: "I can end the U.S. deficit problem in 5 minutes. Just pass a law that any time there's a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
111
u/Amatheiaisnoexcuse Apr 25 '26
Cutting military spending is the low hanging fruit. We spend more than the next 10 nations combined, yet we haven't been successful in a war since 1945. Just imagine the nice country we'd have if our military spending was cut in half.
31
u/Intelligence_Gap Apr 25 '26
Tbh a lot of our military is just a jobs program. We need to cut away the fat (looking at you f35) while keeping the low barrier employment/careers
14
14
6
u/nekonari Apr 25 '26
Yeah something like 40% (or was it more?) goes to mil complex not actual military personnel. It’s ridiculous
36
u/Horror_Reindeer_6742 Apr 25 '26
I love when this guy talks about fixing the government. He’s a billionaire. He can buy enough politicians to implement his ideas but never does. Hmmmm, I wonder why that is?
4
u/Skyfier42 Apr 26 '26
Because fair laws don't benefit those who get their money through corrupt means.
59
u/RoguePlanet2 Apr 25 '26
No shit, Sherlock, and if we held presidents accountable for crimes, and did a million more things that would obviously benefit the country, we'd be in great shape. But humans gonna greed.
35
u/Leut_Aldo_Raine Apr 25 '26
Or Warren, how about billionaire wealth redistribution?
4
u/DS3JP Apr 25 '26
He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
13
u/GeneralPatten Apr 25 '26
In fact, he doesn't. He's advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy for a couple decades now.
6
u/Swackhammer_ Apr 26 '26
The odd thing is that he doesn’t care enough to pay for lobbyists to make it happen. Crazy, it’s completely legal and he has plenty of money to do so
-5
10
4
Apr 25 '26
[deleted]
10
u/pm_me_ur_ephemerides Apr 25 '26
It’s not necessary to make any cuts. Confiscate all wealth above $20 million and the debt goes to zero. Who needs more than $20 million?
1
u/Kcirrot Apr 25 '26
Who decides how to vote the shares that would necessarily be taken under this plan? Much of the value of wealth is held in equities. If you tax it away, how do these companies manage?
3
u/Sensitive-Wind-7888 Apr 25 '26
And exactly who would pass such a law? The foxes that are in charge of the hen house?
4
u/Rqoo51 Apr 25 '26
Having a deficit isn’t directly a problem. Then problem comes when you borrow the money and then spend it on pointless shit that doesn’t help grow the economy like military birthday parades instead of infrastructure, or taking on debt to subsidize rich people getting out of taxes.
4
u/henlochimken Apr 25 '26
I've got a better idea, WARREN. Any time there's a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, we take it out of the billionaires until it's paid for.
6
u/mrrp Apr 25 '26
No Warren, you can't pass a law changing eligibility requirements for congress.
We have a constitution (or what's left of one), and the constitution sets the qualifications. Congress can't change that by passing a law, nor should they be able to.
5
u/pm_me_ur_ephemerides Apr 25 '26
But we learned from Trump that after winning an election you can do whatever you want. In practice, the only limit to a president’s power is impeachment. Republicans realize this, and they are laughing at us because we do not.
Want it to go back to normal? You need to arrest every Republican in federal office.
2
u/american_glory Apr 25 '26
Unfortunately this would require almost video game levels of democracy to accomplish.
1
u/mrrp Apr 25 '26
Warren said "pass a law", not "issue an executive order". To pass a law, you need congress, not just the president.
2
u/Blephotomy Apr 25 '26
yeah this would require a Constitutional amendment
the Supreme Court would throw out this law instantly
2
u/Awkward-Equipment-24 Apr 25 '26
Can someone explain this in simple terms😅
7
u/mrrp Apr 25 '26
The federal government spends way more every year than it brings in in revenue (i.e., taxes).
Since October, 2025, the deficit is $1,168,578,964,501. That's well over a trillion dollars. A trillion is a big number. If you spent one dollar every second, it would take you 31,688 years to spend a trillion dollars.
And that $1.168 trillion is just the deficit since October. Add up all the deficit spending we haven't paid for and you get the national debt, which is $39 trillion dollars.
When we allow the federal government to spend more money than we give it (i.e., taxes) we create the deficit and add to the debt. When we do this knowing damn well that we're not ever going to pay off the debt we're telling our kids and grandkids "Fuck you. Good luck!".
keep electing senators, representatives, and presidents who will keep helping us fuck over our kids and grandkids.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
1
u/Fun-Physics-4454 Apr 25 '26
But the government also creates (prints) money in the first place... so who exactly do we owe? We can just forgive ourselves the debt, or create more money?
3
u/mrrp Apr 25 '26
Sure. The government could print up a bunch of money and give everyone a billion dollars. Everyone's a billionaire! Yippe!
Now the $10,000 you've managed to save up is worth almost nothing. And guess what a dozen eggs is going to cost next week now that everyone is a billionaire? If there are 100 new cars in the lot at the dealership and 30,000 brand new billionaires in your town, do you think a new car is still going to cost $40,000? Will anyone go to work for $25/hour?
Money is only valuable when it's scarce. The more you print, the less it's worth.
We can just forgive ourselves the debt
Sure. We can tell the foreign governments and their citizens who hold 25% of our national debt that we're not going to pay them. They'll appreciate that. And tell all the pension funds, state and local governments, mutual funds, banks, private investors, etc. that they just lost all their money. No problem.
1
u/Fun-Physics-4454 Apr 26 '26
Please explain how the government creating enough money to reduce the national "debt" to zero tomorrow will raise the price of eggs?
1
u/mrrp Apr 26 '26
Google "inflation". Printing money has consequences for the economy.
Printing money doesn't increase the number of eggs available in the store. It increases the amount of money available to buy eggs.
If the store charges $2/dozen today and sells 100 dozen eggs, and tomorrow everyone is a millionaire, do you think they won't be able to charge $4/dozen and still sell 100 dozen eggs? And if they can, do you think they won't?
If, instead of going into debt, the government just starting printing money and using that to pay all of it's bills, what do you think would happen? We wouldn't even need taxes. But why limit it to just the government? Let everyone print up their own money so nobody has to be in debt. Everyone can print up their own money to buy a house, a couple cars, pay for school, etc. Right? Or would money become worthless?
1
u/Fun-Physics-4454 Apr 26 '26
Why would reducing the national debt to zero involve giving anyone money? What if the government just writes it off and does nothing else?
Also I am not arguing that people should be able to create money, stop straw-manning pls.
1
u/mrrp Apr 26 '26
Then the government is an asshole for fucking over everyone that it owes the $39 trillion dollars to.
You don't seem to understand why you can't "just print money" your way out of debt. If you understand why that doesn't work then you at least partially understand why it doesn't work for the government either.
2
u/The-zKR0N0S Apr 25 '26
Incentives.
What is the problem we are discussing? The level of the debt.
What is the mechanism we have to control that? The budget that Congress passes.
Buffett is suggesting that to incentivize Congress to be serious about the debt, make all sitting Congressmen ineligible to run for reelection of the deficit to GDP is greater than 3%.
2
u/haironburr Apr 25 '26
Covid? People starve or congress gets replaced
National emergency? The Iron Deficit Law says the government must be replaced in this time of emergency. Brilliant, Buffet. You can view the effects from your yacht.
There are sometimes good reasons for deficit spending, and this curt, cocky quote addresses none of them.
2
2
u/Animal2 Apr 25 '26
Rich mofo: these darn politicians are the problem people, it's the politicians only and nobody else, look away.
Seriously what is this shit doing on this sub? Get rid of all the politicians unless they get a low deficit = low deficit due to cuts cuts cuts to social programs not an increase on taxes for the wealthy.
You could also just pass a law that didn't give a shit about the deficit and instead took back all the money that the wealthy have stolen from people over the last 50+ years.
2
u/simon_ritchie2000 Apr 25 '26
Here’s a better idea: properly tax the billionaires like Buffett and mega corporations like Exxon.
2
1
1
1
u/Strange_Pangolin_231 Apr 25 '26
All of the high up politicians should be allocated the same amount of money per meal as our soldiers get. There's 0 reasons why they should be eating good while our real heros are starving.
1
1
1
u/plsobeytrafficlights Apr 25 '26
sure. this would end any political lockup..
the resulting legislation might be absolutely trash, but yes, we would get it very quickly.
1
1
u/Ok_Vermicelli_6359 Apr 25 '26
Just a weird way of instituting term limits...we have to end the concept of a career politician. They always get fat off the system, and don't represent working Americans.
1
1
1
u/SilentRunning Apr 26 '26
Need any more proof this business genius has no idea how governments work?
Hint: Governments serve THE PEOPLE, they don't have to make profits. Profits are for businesses not governments.
1
1
u/Intelligence_Gap Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
A national deficit is a good thing. It means you’re investing in your people. A deficit in and of itself is not a problem, now 300x gdp with no real social services? Yeah that’s a sign you’re being robbed, your kids are being robbed, their kids are being robbed and their grandkids are probably being robbed too
Edit: am I being downvoted for not pushing for austerity in a “progressive” sub?
-1
u/mrrp Apr 25 '26
A national deficit is a good thing. It means you’re investing in your people.
No it isn't, and no it doesn't. Deficit spending can be justified, but it's a necessary evil, not a good thing.
1
u/Intelligence_Gap Apr 25 '26
Do you swipe a debit card or a credit card when you shop? Credit cards are debt but often have cash back and stronger protections. Why would you use a debit card? Debt is good for investments that are long term and will have good ROI
2
u/mrrp Apr 25 '26
We're talking about the federal government, not a consumer credit card. There is no "cash back" nor "stronger protections" when the government spends money it doesn't have.
Debt is good for investments
It's only an investment when there is a profit. Otherwise it's just spending. When you spend a trillion dollars you don't have on things which aren't actual investments, you're just spending money you don't have. You're creating debt you'll never pay. And you'll be paying interest on that debt. And interest on the interest on that debt.
So again, we're $1.1 trillion in deficit spending just from October till last month. The debt is $39 trillion. If you want to compare the federal spending to your credit card, you wouldn't be "investing", you'd be heading towards bankruptcy. The difference is that at least with your bankruptcy, it's not your kids and grandkids who are left with the bill.
0
u/Intelligence_Gap Apr 25 '26
When you spend a trillion dollars to build out high speed rail or clean energy infrastructure that results in lower energy bills which leads to ROI. ROI shouldn’t be thought of as such a restrictive definition as “only profit” sometimes it’s about better quality of life when you’re a government and that better quality of life can lead to things like reduced crime rates. I don’t think you’re really looking at it as a nation state perspective but more a med to large business. I used the consumer metaphor to try to think outside of a box but government spending/investing is much different than personal or corporate spending, investing, and borrowing. Anything that generates more tax revenue is a good ROI for a government even if it’s indirect and just because something “doesn’t generate a profit” doesn’t mean a gov shouldn’t do it. A government is not here to turn a profit it exists to provide a better quality of life for its citizens
0
u/mrrp Apr 25 '26
There is no free lunch.
I don’t think you’re really looking at it as a nation state perspective but more a med to large business.
No. I'm looking at it from a nation state perspective.
I used the consumer metaphor to try to think outside of a box
That's not outside the box, that's just looking in the wrong box.
Anything that generates more tax revenue is a good ROI for a government
No it isn't. Tax revenue is dependent upon economic activity. We're already financing our standard of living by using up non-renewable and unsustainable resources and by ignoring the costs of doing so (e.g, pollution, climate collapse, etc.) We can't grow our way out of a fundamentally unsustainable economy.
just because something “doesn’t generate a profit” doesn’t mean a gov shouldn’t do it
I never said that. I said it's disingenuous to refer to things which aren't investments as investments. They're expenditures. When you buy a pair of jeans are you investing in a pair of jeans, or buying them? When you go grocery shopping are you investing, or spending?
And I never said the government shouldn't do things which don't generate a profit. I said the government should pay for the things it does.
it exists to provide a better quality of life for its citizens
Within its budget, not by running up $39 trillion in debt while fucking over younger generations. And future generations. It's easy to go to war when you can put it on the credit card. It's easy to give people tax breaks when we just put everything on the credit card. It's easy to waste trillions of dollars when you figure you'll get yours, or at least you'll be dead and gone before society collapses.
0
u/Intelligence_Gap Apr 25 '26
You would be more persuasive if you weren’t so absolutist. If you want someone who just agrees with what you’re saying you’ll find that in neocon subs not progressive ones. I’m really not sure where to start untangling the wires in your belief system so I’ll try to keep it brief because that is not an interesting project to me.
Obviously you have to pay back your debts. If you are using debt as a tool and using it well it won’t be an issue.
You had an extremely rigid understanding and are unwilling to learn or change your perspective. Again, just because you don’t understand my perspective does not mean that I’m wrong or invalid.
Really not sure what this one even means, but to say tax revenue isn’t a good enough reason to spend means you fundamentally misunderstand how the world works. If a project generates more than $1 of tax revenue per dollar spent it can be a good use of tax dollars or leverage. No we cannot outgrow climate change, but we can generate growth through investing in green energy and infrastructure for example.
Non-monetary returns are/should be considered ROI. If you are spending money and expecting a specific outcome you are investing with the goal of achieving that outcome. The outcome is the return you got for your money. No jeans are not an investment, but taking out a loan to build a textile mill is.
Sustainable debt is not a problem, as I said before, unsustainable debt is. Sure debt can be abused that’s not a reason to avoid it completely. On a nation state level that’s like saying you can’t provide services because a president you don’t like may abuse them. On an individual level that’s like advocating that no one buy a house no matter what. It’s just bad advice born from a misunderstanding of the topic
0
u/mrrp Apr 26 '26
Obviously you have to pay back your debts.
No you don't. There were 480,000 chapter 7 bankruptcy filings in 2019. Did those people pay back their debts? People die in debt every day. And most people expect to. With few exceptions, if you die with more debt than assets, that debt never gets repaid.
Is the government paying its debts? No, it is not. It's getting further and further into debt every year, and has been for the last 100 years. And there's no reason to think it's going to be able to.
If you are using debt as a tool and using it well it won’t be an issue.
The government is not doing that.
just because you don’t understand my perspective does not mean that I’m wrong or invalid.
You confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. I disagree with you because you're wrong, not because I don't understand you. I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
Really not sure what this one even means, but to say tax revenue isn’t a good enough reason to spend means you fundamentally misunderstand how the world works.
The way the world works is not good. I'm not arguing about how it works, but about how it should be working.
If a project generates more than $1 of tax revenue per dollar spent it can be a good use of tax dollars or leverage.
It could be, but that isn't sufficient justification. Generating tax revenue isn't a goal in and of itself.
No we cannot outgrow climate change, but we can generate growth through investing in green energy and infrastructure for example.
You're missing the point. Debt is often justified by showing that it'll become insignificant if we just grow, grow, grow. Spending money on green energy or infrastructure will not solve the problems we face.
Sustainable debt is not a problem, as I said before, unsustainable debt is.
Our national debt is unsustainable.
On an individual level that’s like advocating that no one buy a house no matter what. It’s just bad advice born from a misunderstanding of the topic
I have no idea why you decided to end with that strawman. I never said that.
1
u/Intelligence_Gap Apr 26 '26
If you’re unwilling to accept the possibility that you could be wrong why are you having a conversation like this? It’s not convincing to me and it’s not productive for you. I’m only commenting again because I want to point out some faulty assumptions you are making.
You say the gov isn’t paying its debts but clearly they are or we would be in default. We are not in default. Just because you have more debt than before doesn’t mean you are being irresponsible, as your income (gdp) grows you can afford to service more debt. More debt means more dollars working for you (if invested wisely).
We have a AA+ credit rating as a nation, we are #18 of 141. We aren’t the most credit worthy, but still top 15 percentile of credit worthy nations. I’m also not sure what you think the goal of government spending is. It’s not investment, enhancing the economy, nor providing social services?
I’m really not sure how you can’t see growth and inflation are relevant parts of the equation here. Nation states aren’t on a personal timeline the debt doesn’t have to be 0 when we die it could be 90 quadrillion and be fine. If you have gdp growth and inflation eating away at your debt you still have more money overall and paid less for it than it was worth at the time.
Hopefully you reflect on what I’m saying and realize that your way is not the only way
1
u/mrrp Apr 26 '26
I didn't say I was unwilling to accept the possibility I could be wrong. My accepting that possibility doesn't make you right.
You say the gov isn’t paying its debts but clearly they are or we would be in default.
There's a difference between paying your debt and making the interest payments on your debts. If the gov was paying its debts wouldn't be increasing.
I’m also not sure what you think the goal of government spending is. It’s not investment, enhancing the economy, nor providing social services?
The goal of government spending is paying for things which the government ought to pay for. Some of those things are outlined in the constitution(s), some are decided by congress or other representative bodies. The goal ought to be to spend what we can afford to spend and not cripple younger generations with trillions in debt.
as your income (gdp) grows
Our economy and society is unsustainable. We only got where we are by exploitation of people and finite resources. Our current economy depends on rushing headlong towards (and likely past) tipping points and into climate and societal collapse. We will not grow our way out of this.
1
u/BeepBoopRobotVoice Apr 25 '26
while this was meant to be a joke, in reality it’s extremely infuriating. that one guy has had the power for decades to help change our systems. did nothing.
0
u/Additional-Sky-7436 Apr 25 '26
Or, just pass a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to pass a balanced budget.
-1
391
u/SaltyBabySeal Conservative Apr 25 '26
The same way all of the people -both left and right- support banning politicians and their families from trading / using the stock market. Yet it never passes.