Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
How do you hold down government spending?
Any move to reduce government spending is a positive for the economy.
If we don't get a grip on government spending, there will be no growth.
We should reduce total government spending as a percentage of the economy.
We should never waive the checks on government spending that taxpayers deserve.
The Pentagon budget, like all government spending, is an expression of priorities.
Aggressive government spending during the Great Recession was absolutely necessary.
Colorado needs a governor who brings people together to create jobs and cut government spending.
Voters want conflicting things. They want a lot of government spending, but they don't want higher taxes.
A long-lasting and sustained recovery will never be achieved through massive government spending programs.
Social Security is not just another government spending program. It is a promise from generation to generation.
The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending - with the exception of the money spent on them.
Lower taxes, less government spending on domestic programs and fewer regulations mean a better economy for everybody.
Unemployment, foreclosures, bankruptcy - the cure is not more government spending, but helping businesses create jobs.
What you really want to do is sit down and find a place that you can control government spending and raise more revenue.
I believed the only thing that could turn around this government spending and mounting debt would be if the people rose up.
When you have a country that's been accustomed to government spending at a certain level, it is really hard to ratchet it back.
Clinton's successor in the White House, George W. Bush, was committed to expanding government spending for faith-based initiatives.
Deficits are anathema to most Republicans. And Democrats widely believe that government spending should fall as the economy recovers.
Maryland needs someone in Congress who will fight to create jobs, stop out-of-control government spending and defend small businesses.
The goal is to reduce the size and scope of government spending, not to focus on the deficit. The deficit is the symptom of the disease.
Sequestration was not designed to be anyone's ideal method for getting our hands around government spending, and it certainly isn't mine.
I think anybody who looks at my record will say I've been trying to cut government spending and make government live more like families do.
Instead of cutting waste, the Obama Administration is hurting workers. President Obama should stop protecting wasteful government spending.
American workers need a common-sense plan to make small businesses and entrepreneurs competitive again - not simply more government spending.
I think Bush has capitulated on affirmative action and government spending. Apart from that, he's OK, I guess. About the same as Howard Dean.
The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.
For more than forty years, the United States Congress has shamelessly used payroll taxes intended for Social Security to fund big government spending.
We need a proper balance between government spending on nursing homes and nursery schools - on the last six months of life and the first six months of life.
Outside of Washington, D.C., most Americans aren't concerned with doing things 'big.' They're looking for less government spending, lower taxes, and good jobs.
We need transparency in government spending. We need to put each government expenditure online so every Floridian can see where their tax money is being spent.
You've got the Democratic Party that now depends on more government spending and actual building the dependence on government in order to increase their political party.
The idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers - that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried.
The same undisciplined government spending and social engineering that has undermined our economy over the past 30 years has also been tearing at the social fabric of this land.
Republicans know that government spending creates jobs. They just want that spending to be funneled to their projects and districts... and they certainly don't want to say it out loud.
Government spending clearly needs some adjusting. But a budget is a statement of our priorities, and balancing our spending on the backs of our nation's seniors is not the right approach.
Past experience with fiscal austerity at home and overseas strongly suggests that it is best for the economy's long-run performance to restrain government spending rather than raise taxes.
We should reduce total government spending as a percentage of the economy. The left wants to focus on the deficit so they can take us away from the focus on spending as a percentage of the economy.
I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.
Government spending is taxation. When you look at this, I've never heard of a poor person spending himself into prosperity; let alone I've never heard of a poor person taxing himself into prosperity.
If taxes and government spending are both slashed, then the salutary result will be to lower the parasitic burden of government taxes and spending upon the productive activities of the private sector.
If you look at the studies coming out of the Congressional Budget Office, the number one thing that's going to blow a hole in the deficit as we go forward 20, 30 years is government spending on healthcare.
I came to Congress on the promise of cutting wasteful government spending. There are plenty of examples of the government playing loose with taxpayer money, but none more so than how we spend our foreign aid dollars.
I think the government lost control over fiscal policy in UPA-2. But it is possible to suggest that the momentum of the populism of UPA-1 did the damage when the economy slowed down, but government spending could not.
The main issue is huge government spending, and my record has been trying to make sure the federal government lives within its means. I guess that's really what separates where Republicans have been from the Democrats.
Americans for Tax Reform is a national taxpayer organization dedicated to opposing any and all tax increases. We work at the national, state and local level for lower taxes, less government spending and limited government.
When they call the slightest spending reductions 'painful', we will say 'If government spending prevents pain, why are we suffering so much of it?' And 'If you want to experience real pain, just stay on the track we are on.'
Take Hispanic voters. They favor Democrats because they like the party's programs, from health care reform to government spending on education. It's not because the Republicans don't have a big enough Office of Hispanic Outreach.
Many conservatives were openly angry with the Bush administration over enormous government spending and the chaos in Iraq. I don't see as much independent thinking on the left, where President Obama is rarely criticized by his acolytes.
To win elections, politicians have promised practically endless government spending and covered up the cost, leaving generations of taxpayers obligated to pay off the debt. That's wrong, but neither the U.S. nor Europe has a plan to stop it.