What this post is doing...and I assure you, it absolutely is addressing your post...is highlighting the faulty nature of your logic.
Your entire premise seems to be that your OPINION based conclussions are butressed by "facts" and therefore must be absolute truths, rather than opinions, that must have no other explanations other those facts you've presented. What my post was doing was highlighting that through the use of arbitrary contextual selections and methods of measurement one can craft a variety of facts that one can use to try and present their opinion as something other than an opinion.
Secondly, it does address your original assertion. It's not my fault you've since moved the goal posts, nor is it my responsability to deal singularly with your moved goal posts. Your initial sneering comment suggested REPUBLICANS in general, not republican presidents, have not been "consistent and reliable deficit increasers". My facts were presented to highlight the issue that you were trying to present your OPINION as "Fact" based on one set of facts, while ignoring another set of facts that tells an entirely different story.
If one looks only at the presidency, one could say republicans have been a consistent and reliable deficit increasers. If one looks at the Congress, one could say republicans have been a consistent and reliable deficit decrease. In both cases, the assertion's legitimacy depends on the "facts" one is subjectively choosing to use. Which was my point.
And Republican congresses do preside over deficit reduction is a fact (in recent history) as well. So while it's accurate if one wishes to talk about just conservative presidents, which you've since done by moving the goal posts, it's inaccurate to claim it for "republicans" in general as you did in the OP.Conservative presidents don't preside over deficit reduction is a fact (in recent history).
Um. yes it does. I'm sorry that "fact" bothers you, but it does.Another fact is the deficit does not consistently rise and fall based on which party controls Congress.
It fell both times Republicans had full controll since 1989. It's risen both times the Democrats have had control since 1989. The only time it's been inconsistent in that time frame is the two periods of time that congress has been split. That is absolutely consistent.
Of the 10 years of total republican control it fell 80% of the time. Of the 10 years of total democratic control it fell 50% of the time. That's a pretty consistent rate for falling under the republicans, and a pretty consistent walk down the middle of the democrats.
I had to "hopscotch" years because the congress changes controll. Just because congresses changes control more often then a president doesn't mean I'm "hopscotching".which is why you had to hopscotch years in order for your narrative to work.
Dem's had control 89 to 1994.
Reps had control 95 to 2000
Split controll from 01 to 2002
Reps had control from 03 to 2006
Dems had control from 07 to 2010
Split control from 11 to the present
That's fact, that's reality. I didn't "hop" over any time frame, I looked at every single year during that time frame...just as you were doing with the presidency.
Your annoyance and pitiful attempt to dismiss my facts (while desperately avoiding acknowledging they're true since you can't prove otherwise) highlights exactly my point as to what you're doing. You were hoping to sit here and scream "fact fact fact" and make everyone just think that your assertion based on those facts are absolutely true without any further analysis. Now that someone is presenting a similar style, but with the opposite effect, you're getting huffy about it and trying to just hand wave it away.
My "facts" are no less true than yours. My pointing at them is no more arbitrary or less "clear" than yours.
No, what you wish is that I'd just accept your "facts" as the only "facts" avialable, that I'd accepted your subjective starting point as the only one available, that I accept your opinion of what it should be measured against as fact, and that I should ignore you moving the goal posts and that there are more "republicans" in government than just the President. Unfortunately, that "wish" is not going to happen. I am addressing your point, and to do so I have to address the flawed method in which you're making your point.I thank you for the reasonable argument, but I'd wish you'd actually address my point instead of redirecting it.