You've got the Democratic Party that now depends on more government spending and actual building the dependence on government in order to increase their political party.

I think people are confused about what the Tea Party is. I mean they were a broad cross-section of Americans who came together concerned about our debt and our spending. And they're interested in constitutional limited government. And so they're not one group of people. They're thousands of small groups all over the country.

Now I learned soon enough that among the three two don't trust the third one - the third one is the government. Both industry and unions feel the government is a talking organization and a spending organization.

Government does not have a revenue problem government has a spending problem. Government does not have a revenue problem government has a priority problem. It is time that we begin to fine tune our focus and decide what the priority of government ought to be.

The government deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government spends and the amount it has the nerve to collect.

Someone has to stay on the line and say no we can do this by cutting spending and reducing the size of government. That's what I was committed to doing.

People spending more of their own money on routine health care would make the system more competitive and transparent and restore the confidence between the patients and the doctors without government rationing.

I believed the only thing that could turn around this government spending and mounting debt would be if the people rose up.

Under the administration of George W. Bush you will recall federal spending grew pretty significantly. At the same time the number of people directly employed by the federal government shrank. One of the factors that explained the difference was contracting.

Clinton's successor in the White House George W. Bush was committed to expanding government spending for faith-based initiatives.

I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.

President Obama's call for nearly a half-trillion dollars in more government stimulus when America has more than $14 trillion in debt is guided by his mistaken belief that we can spend our way to prosperity.

There is nothing inherently fair about equalizing incomes. If the government penalizes you for working harder than somebody else that is unfair. If you save your money but retire with the same pension as a free-spending neighbor that is also unfair.

'Hello my name is the Republican Party and I got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government.' I'd like one of them just to stand up and say that.

And I can tell you that history will back up what I'm about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives Republicans put whoever you want there if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has it will do it. It will do it every time.

And you can't have a prosperous economy when the government is way overspending raising tax rates printing too much money over regulating and restricting free trade. It just can't be done.

It is time we passed a balanced budget amendment and return this government to limited spending.

To reduce deficit spending and our enormous debt you reign in spending. You cut the budget. You don't take more from the private sector and grow government with it. And that's exactly what Obama has in mind with this expiration of Bush tax cuts proposal of his.

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.

In a very weak economy when you say 'cut government spending ' what you mean is you're laying off school teachers and you're de-funding various programs that put money into the economy. This means you have more unemployed people that then draw unemployment benefits and don't pay taxes.

The belief that recipients of government aid are better off the more we spend on them is remarkably persistent. No matter how many times this central tenet of liberalism gets debunked like Brett Favre it just keeps coming back.

Increased government spending can provide a temporary stimulus to demand and output but in the longer run higher levels of government spending crowd out private investment or require higher taxes that weaken growth by reducing incentives to save invest innovate and work.

Remember that government doesn't earn one single dollar it spends. In order for you to get money from the government that money must first be taken from somebody else.

Since taking office President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies - an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus. All of this new government spending was sold as 'investment.'