John Delaney Quotes

Gradual fiscal consolidation may also be stimulative in the short run.

If we don't get a grip on government spending, there will be no growth.

Fiscal policy is not just, or even not even principally, the purview of the president.

Federal spending is atrocious.

It is the policy of the federal government to use all resources at its disposal to make our financial system stronger.

In the area of macroeconomic policies, I think we'll see more centralization, like in the budgetary sphere.

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

When you’ve changed the budget, you’ve really changed the government, and until you change the budget, you’ve just talked about changing government.

Never in the nation’s history had a president proposed large, simultaneous spending increases and tax cuts when the federal budget already had a 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.

Getting the budget balanced, regulatory reform, tax reform - I think these lead to economic growth.

Fiscal policy is a very important part of the tool kit for policy makers.

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.

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.

Well, I think what we need to remember is that budget deficits can impede economic activity.

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.

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.

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.

What you really want to do is sit down and find a place that you can control government spending and raise more revenue.

In the past, proactive fiscal polices almost always meant just more investment and an increase in the fiscal deficit.

The Prime Minister in the UK thinks spending and borrowing more is the right thing to do in the circumstances, and is busily trying to bail out chunks of the private sector which would otherwise have to adjust more quickly to the painful reality that we have been living beyond our means.

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.

We need to replace hyperbole with a reasonable, informed discussion about how to reinvent the federal budget with more transparency and better accountability.

We know that advanced economies with stable governments that borrow in their own currency are capable of running up very high levels of debt without crisis.