Hacker News Reader

Comment by readthenotes1 | Hacker News Reader

Warren Buffett had this line that we would have no budget deficits if it we're required that every Congress person who voted for such would be ineligible for re-election.

Pushing the cost burden on subsequent generations is a cowardly way to deal with our financial problems. When Reagan entered office, the debt was less than $1T (about $3.5T in today's dollars).

The #4 cost currently is paying off interest (not principle) on old debt.

View on HN

It’s funny but economically wrong to ban deficits.

I agree we are spending too much now, but the solution should not be to stop all spending.

The problem is deeper than just a deficit.

We should bring back surpluses in the good times. If you are the head of a country and you are proclaiming that the economy is "the greatest ever" then you should be running a balanced / surplus budget.

If the economy is in the shitter you are perfectly entitled to run a deficit.

Can the down voters help me understand the downvotes? The argument seems cogent.

Doing good? Pay down debts. Need a boost? Invest and incur debt. Where is the flaw?

It makes nobody happy - people who think deficits are bad, people who think continual deficits are good, people with no trust in politicians to do the right thing.

It might be more optimal to run a small deficit but I don't think you can trust the legislature with it.

>Warren Buffett had this line that we would have no budget deficits if it we're required that every Congress person who voted for such would be ineligible for re-election.

Yeah, and the USSR would have won.

>When Reagan entered office, the debt was less than $1T (about $3.5T in today's dollars).

Well, guess who won the Cold War? Who pushed the USSR to bankrupt itself?

It would be like saying "no private company should ever raise capital".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com