Browse > Home / Budgeting, Economy / Video explanation of $100 million

| Subscribe via RSS

Video explanation of $100 million

May 3rd, 2009 | No Comments | Posted in Budgeting, Economy

The news of the President’s budget stirred up quite a bit of discussion when it was unveiled several weeks ago. President Obama is proposing the largest budget ever and about 33% of it is unfunded. In other words, we are going into the Fiscal Year (FY) knowing we don’t have enough money to cover the cost of the things proposed. In my house my wife would call that a “bad idea”. On March 25, 2009, Peter Ferrara from The Fox Forum says:

The budget Obama proposes for this year increases federal spending by a fiscally insane 34% over the budget adopted for last year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever. That spending would equal 28.5% of GDP, an increase in the size of the federal government in Obama’s first year of 42% compared to the postwar average relative to GDP.

In an effort to help make people feel better, the President decided to cut $100 million of government spending from the budget. That sounds like a lot of money, but it is hard to compare that number to the entire budget because the numbers are so big. Someone emailed this video to me that helps explain the size of the ‘budget cut’ being proposed.

Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites StumbleUpon

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to get the latest updates by RSS feed or if you prefer we will send updates directly to your Email.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

Comments »

No comments yet.

Note, comment moderation is enabled, and may explain why your comment does not immediately appear. I review and approve all comments as time permits.

Trackback responses to this post

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.