[Toddsterpatriot]

A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143 percent.

I'd settle for cutting it 100%.

[palmer]

I'd go for the 143% and ask for the bridges to nowhere nowhere money back.

[dashing doofus]

You'd eliminate our military, Coast Guard, any semblance of border control, default on our bonds, cut off Social Security, Medicaid, transportation funding, etc?

Wow. Radical!

I think we should get the so-called "nondiscretionary spending under control." Our republican congress and republican president have failed in this regard. Naturally, the Dems would make it much worse, and try to solve all these problems with tax increases......

[cope85]

The Federal Reserve - What Is It? Who Is It?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b13c8401f8f.htm

[Conservative Goddess]

My thoughts were, how do you CUT spending by over 100%???

You can't "not spend" more than you were spending.

[Protagoras]

I'd settle for cutting it 100%.

You must walk before you can run. I'd settle for a freeze in the short term.

Of course the chances of anything even remotely like that are nil.

I would say the chances for a slowdown in the growth are practically nil. Neither party advocates it.