Sentences with phrase «for less government spending»

Keyes argued for less government spending on the current system in favor of alternatives such as home - schooling, while Obama said spending money on schools was important but parents also need to play a greater role in their children's education.

Not exact matches

So, the government will be spending less and consumers will be spending less, which really means that businesses will be spending less, which means you should expect less spending in your business and you got ta operate for a slow - down going forward.

For a host of reasons, governments the world over have chosen to cut spending, not as a virtue, but as what they believe to be the less severe of two painful options.

That's why analysts expect the government to look for operating expenditure cuts — such as cutting remaining fuel subsidies — even as it tries to keep up development spending and target lower - income households, often called the B40, or bottom 40 percent with incomes of less than around 2,500 ringgit a month.

Al - Fulaij: Except for Dubai, which is relatively less oil dependent, all banking sectors in the region generally have very similar characteristics, being highly dependent on government spending.

Less regulation, less taxation, less government spending and less government control are the solution for future economic growth and securLess regulation, less taxation, less government spending and less government control are the solution for future economic growth and securless taxation, less government spending and less government control are the solution for future economic growth and securless government spending and less government control are the solution for future economic growth and securless government control are the solution for future economic growth and security.

The government is having another, less direct impact on defense spending, namely an increase in demand for weaponry and tech as geopolitical tensions rise.

@TC - The US government is in the red because when the argument between spending more on various programs and taking in less in taxes comes up, our politicians consistently go for the «make everyone happy» option where we spend more and tax less.

If it is the case that not intervening would have led to a significant massacre within this week / fortnight, there is a pragmatic lesser evil case for on balance supporting a not very well thought through intervention (the US has clearly not spent a long time doing this), and a stalemate, and then looking to the Arab League to mediate a political settlement over time in which the government can't win by massacre.

The injunction of less government never applies to military spending and as it did for Reagan this will provide a hidden form of Keynesian pump priming.

But, Daniel needs to recognise that there will be less money if the next Government does not cut taxes and spending (for example, slashing Labour's client state, the welfare bill etc).

The Senate Republicans» budget restores $ 280 million worth of education cuts proposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, eliminates $ 296 million in unfunded mandates for local governments and spend slightly less overall than the governor ($ 132.5 billion, to $ 132.9 billion)-- all without any new revenue generators (AKA taxes).

But everyone knows NY is better off with a balanced government and your team is about increasing taxes to pay for who knows what that nobody wants while my team is for tax cuts and limited / less spending.

So presumably, the less wealthy, after being told what to spend their money on by «society» for all their working years, reach pensionable age fully moulded by a paternalistic government into financially responsible citizens who will commit a significant amount of their time to research where they want to invest their pensions, and subsequently enjoy «regular updates on how their pension fund was growing» — because of course, like house prices, pension funds can only rise in value.

Instead, it would manifest if government spending is kept to 2 % or less per year for the next three years.

Cuomo's budget assumes the federal government will approve a $ 10 billion Medicaid waiver, and that state operating spending will hold to less than two percent a year, which helps balance his plans for a local property tax freeze and for $ 100 million in funding during this coming year, to begin expanding pre-K programs statewide.

The Coalition has to demonstrate that its purpose in government is not simply to cut public debt and rein in spending, but to govern better for less.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) said government spending in these areas made up less than one per cent of its total budget and had proven benefits.

In addition to spending more than expected, corrupt states spent more on government activities and services that are susceptible to manipulation for private gain and less on other activities.

The candidates have offered what boils down to this choice: Either the government spends more to help families pay for college or it spends less to save taxpayers money.

And when provided with the actual numbers on salaries and spending, the researchers say, Americans experience «sticker shock» — and become much less likely to support an increase in government funding for public schools.

And at the end of the day, the federal government accounts for less than ten percent of total spending on education, so any changes would be relatively modest.

And governments reap far higher tax payments from, and spend far less on, services for college graduates.

The federal government contributes less than 10 percent to school spending in California, but it is concentrated in programs for students with disabilities and poor children.

The Fraser Institute says with more money going to the government, families have less for their spending priorities, saving for education and retirement, and paying down debt.

The simplest would be to pay for every American to go to public universities — an idea that may seem starry - eyed but which would cost less than what the government spends now on the current system of college subsidies.

In all of these circumstances, the companies and organizations that would have received government payments have less money to spend on salaries and supplies, and individuals who would have received salaries or benefits have less money for consumption.

«It seems that the UK government is expecting to spend about # 32 billion, (~ 2.2 % of UK GDP), according to the Stern Review [1], every year for the foreseeable future in order to achieve by the year 2100 at the absolute maximum global temperature reduction of ~ 0.0019 °C, (less than 2 thousandths of a degree Centigrade).

While there is pressure on private organisations to spend less money, the same pressure exists for governments, with the result that green initiatives and investments may not be so forthcoming.

U.S. energy companies, for example, spend less than 1 percent of their revenue on research, and the federal government allocates just $ 5 billion per year, far less than Americans spend on cat food.

I suspect that Messrs Nyquist and Shannon, after spending a few hours contemplating the endless plotting of «trends» by Climate Scientists and their pontificating on the dire consequences thereof — with 97 % certainty, no less, would consider the whole field to be comedy comparable to Abbot and Costello's «Who's on First», were it not for the fact that this «comedy» is being cited as justification for governments taxing and regulating every human activity that either produces or consumes energy.

This means that if the government of a developing country spends money on a solar power station it will be able to supply less energy to its impoverished populaton than if it invested in, for example, coal.

Higher government spending allocated towards military meant less was available for social and economic expenditure.

It's time, perhaps, for Alberta Premier Rachel Notley to spend more energy explaining how her government is different from Jason Kenney's Opposition and less on how it's the same!

In the challenge, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations argue the federal government, which is responsible for funding social programs on reserves, is discriminating by spending 22 per cent less on child - welfare services than provincial governments provide for children who live off reserves.

Arguing for improved mental health care, Deutch was critical of state government, which he said spent less per capita on mental health than every other state.

As a result of the plan to not provide Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood — coupled with increased spending for Medicaid services for patients who would have reduced access to care — the CBO estimates that «defunding» Planned Parenthood for one year would result in $ 156 million less in direct spending from the federal government over 10 years.

Although government guidelines call for spending no more than 30 percent of your income on housing, more than 20 million people pay as much as 50 percent, making it virtually impossible for them to get a leg up on the home ownership ladder, much less afford the necessities of life.

The government subsidy helps the mortgage industry sell larger loans but with such an incredibly inelastic supply in housing, the subsidy mainly leads to higher demand, higher home prices, more household debt and less household spending on stuff that creates jobs for other people.

Thus, to hit the $ 538 billion target for the 13 appropriations bills that will fund all the government departments for fiscal year 2000, which begins Oct. 1, 1999, Congress must set a spending plan that's $ 24 billion less than the $ 562 billion it budgeted for this year's spending.