3 ms·

He did, but only after he doubled it his first couple years.

• gnaritas 7y ago
  That's a lie, he was handed a trillion + deficit coming in; which he cut down virtually every year of his presidency.
• bilbo0s 7y ago
  Well, again, in fairness, that was because the global economy had been run into the ground. The situation he stepped into had little to do with him.
  • leereeves 7y ago
    He did vote in favor of the bank bailout (as a Senator) so the large deficit in 2009 did have a little to do with him.
    • bilbo0s 7y ago
      Yes. But that assumes that the global economy had been run into the ground because of the bank bailouts. This is not the case. The situation these leaders were presented with left them with few options. The time to act with complete freedom of movement would have been before the crash. Once the crash happens, your options are severely restricted.
      • leereeves 7y ago
        The bankers who were bailed out were the very people who ran the economy into the ground. The government could have unwound the situation without bailing them out. But the relevant point for this discussion is: that was a one-time event and not a fair comparison with future deficits. Deficits from later years should be compared to 2008 or 2007, or to 2009's budget without the bank bailouts.