If that was the point of the OP, then you'd be correct. But it wasn't, so your rebuttal was solely an effort to strip Obama of any credit for deficit reduction by pointing to Congress as the main reason for deficit reduction. Your reason for doing that I can only guess at.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.
What is my opinion is that Republicans don't do jack when they have the Presidency. In fact, they do exactly what Republicans are railing against when Democrats have the White House. Thus, Republicans are snake oil salesmen wanting nothing more than to put money into the hands of those at the top while raiding the poor and middle classes.
That's my opinion.
In the OP I was addressing the President. Thus, the comparison is focused on presidents. I'll accept that I didn't do it was clearly as I should have, but that was indeed what I was driving at.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.
I accept that correction. Republicans Congresses have been in office and presided over a shrinking deficit.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.
Republican presidents don't end their terms with a lower deficit than when they got into office.
This is why you've solely focused on Congress and ignored the Presidency.Um. yes it does. I'm sorry that "fact" bothers you, but it does.
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.
Which presidency am I hopscotching over?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".
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.
I never tried to refute the facts you presented because they're facts.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.
What you've done is ignored the fact that Republican presidents have not been the bringers of balance. They've increased the deficit when they have the presidency. You'd have to go back pretty far to find this to not be true.
Please don't reshape my argument.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.
As far as goal post moving, you'd clearly done this by your dogged focus on Congress, which was something I never actually address (or at least meant to address).