Sam Graves Quotes

Defense spending as a share of the economy dropped significantly during the early 1990s, and that was one of the things, along with other policy changes, that put us back on the path to a balanced budget.

Any move to reduce government spending is a positive for the economy.

Not in the constitution, but I would propose a law to the French parliament that provides for reducing the budget deficit year by year, until we have reached a balanced budget by 2017.

But I think the global economy will understand that the United States has the ability to meet its obligations. But it's not going to be able to do it over the long term if we can't control the growth of government.

The budget enforcement rules of the 1990s were an important part of getting the budget back into balance. It was done on a bipartisan basis. Those pay-as-you-go rules were tested and they worked. We are now in a one-party system, and we have thrown them out.

Deficits must be cut, yes, but the rush to austerity risks undermining the fragile global recovery.

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.

Look, I am not worried about Washington cutting too much spending too fast. I mean, the kinds of spending cuts we're talking about just right now are $100 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget.

Sequestration is leverage that should not be given up easily.

In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, or less. That is enough. The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government.

The number of realists who are betting that both the 'economy gets healthy soon' and this government gets spending under control is a tiny group, indeed.

Even with not having a balanced budget at this time, I support tax cuts. That will help limit spending.

When Mr. Obama entered office, he said all the right things about getting Washington spending under control. He even promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Obviously, that didn't happen.

We agree with Simpson and Bowles and others who have looked at this. What's necessary is to stabilize the debt and then work from there. You can't balance the budget in the short term because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy.

Monetary discipline forces fiscal discipline on the politicians as well.

The deficit only became a big problem in the Reagan-Bush years. For 12 years, Republican presidents talked about balancing the budget, but failed to propose one.

We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. The less we spend, the more jobs we have the potential to create.

The more we can do to address fiscal austerity, the better our markets will do, and there is a real political shift to doing that.

Like Ike [President Eisenhower] did. Talk economy and then spend away.

Let’s make this the year where we are either going to get rid of the deficit or get rid of the idea that we are going to get rid of the deficit..

The first order of business is the elimination of the annual deficit.

Fiscal discipline can turn the economy around.

Look at what happened in the 1990s: when they balanced the federal budget, it was through growth in the economy and controlling spending.

Only one thing can save this country, and that's to get a handle on this deficit and debt issue.

A lawmaker cannot be pro-sequester while also purporting to be pro-national security or supportive of a strong economy.