Warner Visits Harrisonburg
DebSF -- September 8th, 2010
photo courtesy of Deb SF
The News Virginian reports that Senator Mark Warner spent some time in the valley yesterday, stopping in Harrisonburg after a visit to a health care facility in Lynchburg. He remarked that on taking office in 2009, the economy was in an even deeper ditch than anyone realized. And the senator puts the responsibility on those from Wall Street to Main Street. “The American people have to look in the mirror. We were all too over-leveraged,” said Warner. According to WHSV, the Senator visited Rosetta Stone while in the area, and finished up the day with a town hall meeting at the Spottswood Country Club that attracted nearly 50 people, speaking about the increasing focus on jobs in Washington, and bringing more high-tech, state-of-the-art companies like Rosetta Stone to the area.
Senator Warner seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
And with that “good head” on his shoulder has voted to mortgage the lives of children you don’t yet have as well as their children and grandchildren.
Deficit spending has been the legacy of every president and every senator from both parties for decades, Dave.
If it weren’t for Clinton creating a surplus we’d still be paying off Reagan’s debt. Funny how repubican memories only go as far back as the last election cycle.
Isn’t that the truth!
Reagan’s economic policies paved the way for the boom in the 90s. That boom made it possible for us to get close to having a surplus…we never actually did.
And Clinton’s “surplus” included the IOUs from the Social Security Trust Fund….taking out that money and you have the typical deficit spending.
I don’t disagree, Deb, but your man has spent more than every President from Washington the Reagan — combined.
haha, Joe, Really!? Seriously though, where did you get that one?
I like the Old Dave better. You know, the one who was selling the “Fair Tax”. That was funny. The New Dave has amnesia. He don’t remember how we got into the ditch, and had to pony-up for the tow truck. That is sad.
I think Warner’s a swell guy for showing up in Hooterville. After all, he got us the Port Road funding even though we didn’t support him for Senate. That’s a big man.
Looks like he’s back.
?
Yeah it makes so much more sense to take people on their productivity, as opposed to their consumption.
You raise a good point, but income does not always equal productivity.
“You raise a good point, but income does not always equal productivity.” No it isn’t a good point, regardless of personal productivity we have a country to run.
Balancing the budget is a separate issue from what we choose to tax and not tax. I agree with Teddy Roosevelt when he said: “No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered – not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective – a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”
What we choose to tax is necessitated by what we choose to spend.
It really does Dave, that’s why sales tax is considered a regressive tax. The less you make, the more tax you pay as a percentage of your income.
I personally like John Boehner’s approach that would saddle our children with 700 billion dollars of debt so that millionaires can each receive a $100,000 tax break every year.
Right, David. It makes so much more sense to give people at the bottom of the income ladder more take breaks seeing as to who many jobs those people create.
I can’t recall the last time I saw a welfare mom create a job or employ others.
RE Joe @ 10:47 AM, 2 things.
If Reagan paved the way for the economic conditions of the 90′s, then certainly GW deserves credit for economic conditions we’re experiencing today.
And we did indeed have budget surpluses during the Clinton years. From the 1st graph of this CNN article in 2000:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion.
Deb, you should be ashamed of yourself trying to sell a Clinton “surplus”…
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Clinton obtained his surplus the same way Bob McDonnell obtained his…borrowing…