Quotes About Spending

Bush has never sent over a balanced budget.

The best thing we can do to help small-business owners succeed is cut spending.

The principle that needs to be used to guide the spending is, 'How successful is the program?'

Amazon has suffered quarters-long profit droughts. Alphabet has given its investors agita over profligate spending on non-core products. Microsoft's growth - if not its profit engine - stalled for years, causing its stock to idle, too.

Many Americans who have suffered during a recession have had to cut their spending 1 percent, and they didn't like doing it, but they were able to do it to get their family's finances back in order.

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.

It has been suggested that those of us who are fighting to defend liberty - fighting to turn around the out-of-control spending and out-of-control debt in this country, fighting to defend the Constitution, it has been suggested that we are wacko birds.

Various economists and experts had suggested increasing government spending to fight COVID-19, to help the poor survive. On the other hand, businesses were helped so that the jobs are protected. As a result, the fiscal deficit may look slightly high.

Determining how many asbestos suits have been filed or how much companies have spent to resolve them is difficult. Cases are filed in state and federal courts, and many companies do not disclose their spending on settlements.

Look everywhere you can to cut a little bit from your expenses. It will all add up to a meaningful sum.

That's the very essence of pork barrelism, when you give a huge lump sum to a person and say, 'Well, tell us what you want it for, but you are free to decide where to spend it on.'

Incumbents don't like it, but political competition is a good thing. Incumbents usually outspend challengers by better than 3 to 1. Super PACs, which tend to support challengers, have nullified some of this advantage.

Money often costs too much

Given our abundance, the burden of proof should always be on keeping, not giving. Why would you not give? We err by beginning with the assumption that we should keep or spend the money God entrusts to us. Giving should be the default choice. Unless there is a compelling reason to spend it or keep it, we should give it.

The average American shops six hours a week while spending forty minutes playing with his children.

Some U.S. states spend as much on their prisons as they do on their universities.62 Such expenditures are not the hallmarks of a well-performing economy and society. Money that is spent on "security"—protecting lives and property—doesn't add to well-being; it simply prevents things from getting worse.

The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy are to spend money on common needs. The rich don't need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security. They can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people.

we have designed a legal system that is an arms race: the two protagonists work hard to out-lawyer each other, which is to say outspend each other, since good and clever lawyers are expensive. The outcome is often determined less by the merits of the case or issue than by the depth of the pockets. In the process, there is massive distortion of resources, not just in the litigation but in actions taken to affect the outcome of litigation and to prevent litigation in the first place.

Conservatives and liberals are kindred spirits as far as government spending is concerned. ... Since government has no resources of its own, and since there's no Tooth Fairy handing Congress the funds for the programs it enacts, we are forced to recognize that government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person's property to give it to another to whom it does not belong -- in effect, legalized theft.

Believing that presidents have taxing and spending powers leaves Congress less politically accountable for our deepening economic quagmire. Of course, if you're a congressman, not being held accountable is what you want.

The 2000 election of George W. Bush as president gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion.

views as well. The president "believes [the bill] will involve great expense;

The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.

Americans are in a cycle of fear which leads to people not wanting to spend and not wanting to make investments, and that leads to more fear. We'll break out of it. It takes time.