In time of peace there can, at all events, be no justification for the creation of a permanent debt by the Federal Government. Its limited range of constitutional duties may certainly under such circumstances be performed without such a resort.
Interpretation
The quote asserts that in peaceful times, the government should not create permanent debts, as it can fulfill its responsibilities without resorting to borrowing.
Martin Van Buren emphasizes that during times of peace, it is unjustifiable for the government to incur a permanent debt since it can meet its constitutional obligations without financial strain. This reflects a belief in fiscal responsibility and the importance of maintaining a balanced budget while ensuring that government functions are sustained without unnecessary borrowing.
In practice
During a public debate on fiscal policy, a politician might quote this to advocate for responsible budgeting.
To avoid the necessity of a permanent debt and its inevitable consequences, I have advocated and endeavored to carry into effect the policy of confining the appropriations for the public service to such objects only as are clearly with the constitutional authority of the Federal Government.
It is easier to do a job right than to explain why you didn't.
The less government interferes with private pursuits, the better for general prosperity.
Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude. The first is the resource of intrigue and produces only secondary results, the second is the resort of genius and transforms the universe.
I tread in the footsteps of illustrious men, whose superiors it is our happiness to believe are not found on the executive calendar of any country.
The government should not be guided by Temporary Excitement, but by Sober Second Thought.
You don't drive an economy by consuming - the consumer is not the engine, the consumer is the caboose.
No economy can succeed without a high-quality workforce, particularly in an age of globalization and technical change.
If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper-middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.
Protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs.
Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men.
The reason we should do a carbon tax is because it's the right thing to do. It's economics 101, elementary stuff.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.