Quotes About Policy

I completely understand why people are concerned about immigration. There's no silver bullet, no one thing you can do to suddenly deal with all the problems and concerns with immigration, and that includes leaving the E.U.

When you raise issues with the President, try to come away with both that decision and also a precedent. Pose issues so as to evoke broader policy guidance. This can help to answer a range of similar issues likely to arise later.

The crisis of the fisheries is similar to our economy. This is not one fishery failing, but the whole system.

My budget is similar to the Penny Plan, which cuts 1 percent a year for five or six years and balances the budget.

As with the Pacific Gateway, Canadians were similarly hoodwinked by the Immigrant Investor Program (IIP).

No one argues that we should have imposed a dictatorship in Afghanistan having liberated the country. Similarly, we weren't about to impose a dictatorship in Iraq having liberated the country.

Is multilateralism nothing more than a dodge for simple inaction?

The government can't even do a good job of something as simple as running the Post Office. How can it be expected to do a good job with something really important, like educating our children?

I support the Second Amendment just like everybody else. It's not about taking guns away. It's about doing very simple things that will save lives.

I see nothing easy in Washington. I see either analytically simple things that are politically complex or those that are politically complex and analytically complex. I mean, look at immigration reform, you know? It is, I think, analytically easy, but politically very, very complex and very difficult.

The simple truth is that unless you can control immigration you cannot govern because you cannot set a budget or plan public services.

I look at this in a very simple way: I want to bring the debt down.

I don't know why anyone would prefer a more complicated tax code instead of a simpler one.

We should therefore reject the entire dichotomy between central planning, on the one hand, and market "rationality" on the other.

Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.

In a Washington Post interview, the former USDA chief economist Joe Glauber acknowledged the hypocrisy of the farm lobby taking a stand against income testing for eligibility for farm subsidies, while "you have a knockdown drag-out over whether you'll give SNAP payments to someone earning $26,000 instead of $25,000. Give me a break."21

The reason African Americans overwhelmingly reject Republicans isn't based on word choices or phrasing. It's based on policy. It isn't how Republicans are talking to black voters that results in 90 percent or more of those voters refusing to vote for Republicans. It's what the Republicans are doing, once elected.

When Reagan took office, the national debt was $934 billion; when he left, it was $2.7 trillion.

The biggest mistake so far," said Rudolph G. Penner, who was the chief economist in the Ford Administration's budget office, "was to urge this tremendous cut in taxes without reducing spending sufficiently. That is a major mistake that will have profound long run costs.

colossal stupidity of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.

But no phrase puzzled them more than Social Security deduction.

Je dis plus : la meilleure politique guerrière est de prendre un État intact ; une politique inférieure à celle-ci consisterait à le ruiner.

A political army is not like a military army. A military command begins a war with an army ready to hand, whereas the Party has to create its army in the course of the struggle itself, in the course of class conflicts, as the masses themselves become convinced through their own experience that the slogans of the Party, the policy of the Party, are right.

Macroeconomic policy can never be devoid of politics: it involves fundamental trade-offs and affects different groups differently.