Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 10:53 PM Sep 2014

Warren Buffet's Proposal to Change Social Security and Health Care

Buffet's proposal could help us with Social Security, and perhaps with tweaking the health care system as well. Wait til they have to sit on the phone for an hour in order to then select a health insurer, only to find out a month down the road that the doctors portrayed on the Big Insurers' website as being part of their network actually refused to be part of the network.

Nine Points:

1) No tenure; no pension.
2) A Congressman or woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay once they are out of office

3) Congress, past present and future, participates in Social Security

4) All the funds in the Congressional retirement fund are placed into the Social Security system immediately

All future funds flow into the Social Security system and Congressmen and women participate with the American people. The retirement funds may not be used for any other purpose

5) Congress can purchase their own retirement plan - just as all americans are free to do so.

6) Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay hikes will be on the order of CPI or 3%

7) Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people

8) Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people

9) All contracts with past and present Congressmen and women are void effective 12/1/12 The American people did not make these contracts with Congressmen and women

On edit: It does appear that Warren Buffet did not make this list up. I cannot find any idea as to who did.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

pansypoo53219

(20,906 posts)
2. i notice he didn't say anything about LIFTING THE CAP. lower FICA and put it on ALL MONEY EARNED.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:00 PM
Sep 2014

greenspan fucked amerika again.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
3. I don't understand point 1 ...
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:16 PM
Sep 2014

Why no tenure (Congress' tenure if a function of the electoral process) and why no pension? I agree that pensions should not vest for a period with no full benefits until 65 (and then, only based on a years of service/age formula).

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
5. This is bogus--falsely attributed to Buffett
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:29 PM
Sep 2014

It's just taken from a viral email that has been going around for a few years, which has been debunked repeatedly by Snopes and other fact-checkers. For example:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/03/13/warren-buffett-and-the-mythical-congressional-reform-act

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
6. Okay then, I am sure you will have no problem with my doing what I usually do
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:43 PM
Sep 2014

With good ideas no one else claims: I will then say I thought it up.

Anyway it is about time something else I wrote went viral.

You are free to inform Snopes and al the other debunking site sites that this is my idea. Copyright pending!

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
7. Did you read the link? These ideas are full of misinformation.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:47 PM
Sep 2014

It wasn't only the misattribution that was debunked.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
8. Their debunking is not even correct - for instance they try and make the case that poor wittle
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:04 AM
Sep 2014

Congress people, they have continually run away from giving themselves pay raises. (Which I guess they need because the soles on their running shoes have worn down so much from all that running!)

When in fact they vote every other year or so on giving themselves those raises. (Although it is indeed true that they no longer have to propose and submit the idea of a raise as a separate piece of legislation, since it is an automatic situation that comes up every twelve months or twenty four months.)

That is why this enviable situation is the case with Congress critters and their pay rates:

In 1988, members of Congress earned $89,500 per year.

The following year, Congress passed a law establishing automatic pay increases for itself unless the House and Senate specifically voted to forego raises, which it has done repeatedly. The law was amended in 1991.

Since then, members of the House have seen their annual pay increase 14 times. The Senate has received 15 increases, which is the number the Facebook post got correct. Members of both bodies now receive $174,000 per year, with leaders receiving additional pay.

Meanwhile the average household in this nation has seen a tremendous decrease in their earnings. And many of us will probably never live long enough to recover from the blow dealt to our finances when the economy tanked in both the housing market crunch of 2006 and the Overall Deep And Never Ending Grandioso Depression that started in 2008-2009.

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
10. Wow, their income has almost doubled!!!
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:14 AM
Sep 2014

What bullshit. I not only think nobody should be able to make a career out of living off the public, I don't think they should get any benefits. One term and OUT. It should be about that term they all love to throw around, public service - which none of them are in it for. How many in congress have become wealthy off of the privilege of being in office? Worse, how many have enriched their families with their votes and connections? It's sickening and should be criminal.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
13. Totally Agree. That is the point: their income has about doubled.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:21 AM
Sep 2014

Additonally, like you say, they all are in it for the revolving door privileges that only our lawmakers can have bestowe d on them.

Help the "Friend' you have at Big Pharma get the drug they need to have approved over at FDA, and wow zowie, Batman, you can count on a plush title of VP for Big Pharma "Cancer Cures R Us" Inc once you "retire." Or if you would rather stay in office, then you can see that job quietly transferred to your daughter or niece or son-in-law.

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
15. Hunter Biden
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:38 AM
Sep 2014

and his position on the board of the Ukriane energy company comes to mind. They're already setting up drilling equipment in Slavyansk after the Ukie government slaughtered and bombed the town to ethnically cleanse the population, at the urging of the US and war pimp VP Biden.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
16. What a gruesome piece of informtion.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:47 AM
Sep 2014

The revulsion I feel right now far tops my revulsion when I heard that both Obama and Mrs Clinton were angry and depressed because a Russian Oil Mogul had the twenty billions of dollars of oil that he had swindled re-posessed by the Russian government. Apparently Barack and Hillary had already promised one or two of their oil buddies that oil.

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
17. I think you may be talking about
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 01:08 AM
Sep 2014

Mikhail Khodorkovsky. When the USSR fell apart, he became a billionaire by buying state assets (the people's assets!) for pennies on the dollar. When Putin came to power, a lot of these thieves were prosecuted (or fled the country) and assets returned to the state. With prosecution coming, Khodorkovsky turned over billions to one of the Rothschilds, for safe keeping. He is now out prison and sued Russia in some European court that awarded him billions back (rigged court, imo). I'm sure Russia will keep it tied up legally for years. This is one of the main reasons (going after the oligarchs) that Putin is so hated by the west's elite.

DebJ

(7,699 posts)
9. Um, Congress persons have paid into Social Security for ages now.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:05 AM
Sep 2014

Pay raises that Congress votes on are only applicable for the NEXT term in Congress. The Constitution set that up originally, I believe.
Reps DO get voted out for voting in pay raises, when people participated. Happened here in Pa a few years ago; there was massive
budget cutting and the Reps voted themselves a raise at midnight on the last day of the session. A lot of them were voted out and
never saw the raise.


Congress and health care: "With the start of the Affordable Care Act just weeks away, lawmakers and their staffs have until the end of Monday to enroll in new health-care exchanges established by the law, or decide to pay out of pocket for a different public or private insurance plan."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/09/whats-congress-doing-about-its-own-health-care/

Regarding Congress exempting themselves from laws, see this:
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/jan/16/chain-email/did-members-congress-exempt-themselves-complying-h/

I don't see why people such as Senators Byrd and Kennedy, had they retired, not receive a pension. That's nuts.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
12. You bring up a good point - your idea that long term Senators that we like
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:17 AM
Sep 2014

And that served in Congress for decades deserve a pension.

But the fact is - once a person is in office for more than two terms, they continue to be in office for like forever. I mean, I liked Kennedy and Byrd, but for every one like that you have a Strom Thurmond or a Jessie Helms.

So you basically do have a situation that could be considered "tenure" for people who are elected. And worse than that, as tenure at an academic insitution still comes with the "publish or perish" provision, but in Congress, if you're continually going to run for office in a year or two's time, then important issues that need resolution continually get kicked down the road, for some future generation of Congressional critters to deal with.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Warren Buffet's Proposal ...