When [Republicans] say they can reduce taxes and trim deficits at the same time, they are either deluded or deceptive, and they are playing voters for fools.
Governments need to lay out a credible path to reducing their deficits in the medium term, but without excessively enfeebling an already weak recovery. That means raising retirement ages and overhauling pensions; putting in place the budget rules and institutions that will curb future profligacy; and favouring spending cuts over tax increases.
You have countries that have lived beyond their means, with bloated governments, huge trade deficits, and people living off the government. Then you have others where poor people are working hard and underconsuming and their governments are buying all this debt and propping up the extravagant countries. All of this has to change. There's a tremendous moral hazard involved with this system.
We have to reduce the burden placed on our economy by years of deficits and debt.
Serious people need to work hard to reduce the debt, reduce taxes, and slash regulation on the small businesses and families that are the lifeblood of new jobs and innovation in our state.
We don't need more politicians insisting we have deficits because you're not taxed enough. Those deficits ballooned from an economy that didn't grow enough and from 50 years of government spending too much.
Higher taxes never reduce the deficit. Governments spend whatever they take in and then whatever they can get away with.
When the economy is still struggling, putting people back to work, finding ways to spur economic activity, ultimately can help to reduce the structural deficits and debts that countries experience.
Chronic deficits drastically reduce government's ability to make those infrastructure investments that business needs to grow and create jobs.
The laws of normal economics dictate that lower taxes combined with increased spending will lead to bigger deficits.
Governments create money and spend it into the economy by running budget deficits. The paper currency in your pocket is technically a government debt.
Governments harangue about deficits to get more revenue so they can spend more.
We are in a bit of a policy box and it's going to require us being willing to give up one of the two, which is it's okay to take on more deficits but lets put in some massive spending. Alternatively to say, 'we're going to go through structural unemployment for a while because we want to address deficits.'
Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.
While deficits are often inflationary and always pernicious, curing them by raising taxes is equivalent to curing an illness by shooting the patient.
[Deficits are] a yawner. We, as Republicans, have talked about deficits and balanced budgets since the days of Roosevelt, and the people simply haven't listened, because they can't relate to those huge numbers.