What Does The Federal Budget Freeze Look Like?

For more on the budget freeze, visit:
http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=310
or follow me on Twitter at:
http://www.twitter.com/PoliticalMath

President Obama has recently announced that there will be a budget freeze on a significant portion of the next 3 years worth of budgets. This video walks through what that budget freeze looks like and how much money is actually saved by implementing this policy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• budget freeze
• stimulus
• President Obama
• visualization
• data visualization
• information visualization
• federal budget
• budget
• deficit

[wherenwhen]

@OneWingedShark did we need any kind of stimulus in anyway when the economy was spiraling into chaos and besides none of this was caused by the President. The bailout of those big company's should never have happen but when you have company's or banks who were doing shady business practices because they saw a sucker and accumulated excessive waste as far as capital and lets be honest at that point in time it seemed like every company was going to fold it turned out great not the 1930's.

[OneWingedShark]

@wherenwhen I was never for any stimulus or bailout; in fact after 11Sep's impact on the airline industry I was of the opinion that the airlines should make it (or not) on their own. Yes, one [possible] immediate results of such a stance regarding airlines would be a lot of people getting laid off; but it would also allow new and small companies to take their place, and that would lead to competitive pricing.

[wherenwhen]

lmao when the country was going down the drain before Obama came in too office everybody was a go on the stimulus now that it,s looked okay for a little while every one is asking why did we need the stimulus again bunch of hypocrites.it was not started by obama

[yo45cool1]

OR we could get the money the banks owe us. No offense but it seems in all of your videos you blame Obama for all of our problems, bush has more stake is this.

[MrJoeLiberty]

Love visuals.

[macroman52]

I was under the impression tnhat the Laffer curve and "trickledown economics" was discredited as an economic theory. Guess I was mis-informed. Can you point me to the empricial studies verifying what you say.

[Reilloc13]

@Slipknotyk06 So, in short, it was not an expansion of credit that occurred, but rather a removal of restrictions and fail-safes that kept the housing market stable.

Too Long Didn't Read; Removing restrictions on loaning is not the same as expanding credit.

[Reilloc13]

@Slipknotyk06 The problem with this of course being that people who take out loans on houses far above their income level often go "under water." Another side effect is that once loans become unrestricted, housing prices will also increase, as people are able to mortgage homes they could not previously buy, and the market reflects this by increasing price as a buyer flood hits the market. This is where the housing bubble came from. Spoiler alert: it popped.

[Reilloc13]

@Slipknotyk06 Actually, the point you are citing there is not so much an expansion of credit as a removal of restrictions on bank loans. Expansion of credit would imply that the credit ceiling had been increased, however this was not done. Instead, under Clinton (who otherwise didn't do so bad on the budget side of things, thanks to a balanced government), banks were allowed to lend to anyone, enabling people to purchase homes of much higher value than previously possible.

[Reilloc13]

@macroman52 He said "Even if we kept the tax cuts in the stimulus, simply not spending...." This implies even more savings if you were to increase taxes. However, tax increases do not always have a positive impact on the tax base, which is why trickle down economics works; if you lower taxes in certain brackets, it expands the tax base in those brackets, increasing the overall tax revenue.